LIBRARY OF MNGRESS. 

Shelf .^..CSM-^ 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 



REPORT 



COTTON INSECTS, 



PREPARED 



UNDER THE DIRECTION OF THE COMMISSIONER OF AGRICULT- 
URE IN PURSUANCE OF AN ACT OF CONGRESS 
APPROVED JUNE 19, 1878. 



It , 



V- 



J. HENRY COMSTOCK, 

ENTOMOLOGIST TO THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. 



I,, 



1880 




WASHIl^GTOK; 

aoVERNMENT PRINTINa OFFICEo 
1879. 



7r 



In the Senate op the United States, 

March 3, 1879. 

The following resolution vras agreed to by tlie Senate January 28, 1879, and concurred 
in by tbe House of Representatives March 3, 1879 : 

Resolved by the Senate (the House of Bepresentatives concurring), That there be printed 
10,000 copies of the special report from the Department of Agriculture on the insects 
affecting the cotton plant, with the necessary illustrations, to be made by the Public 
Printer under the sanction of the Joint Conmiittee on Public Printing, 5,000 of which 
shall be for the use of the House of Representatives, 3,000 for the use of the Senate, 
and 2,0U0 for the use of the Department of Agriculture. , 

Attest : 

GEO. C. GOKHAM, 

Secretary, 



TABLE OF CONTENTS. 



Letter to the Commissioner 3 

PART I. 

chapter i. 
Classification and nomenclature 11 

Popular names, 11 ; scientific classification ; characterization of the order 
Lepidoptera, 11 ; families of moths, 11; characterization of the noctuidae, 
12 ; tribes of noctuidae, 12 ; iuj urioiis insects of the tribe noctuae, 12 ; 
generic and specific name of cotton-moth, 12 ; history of the synonymy of 
the cotton-moth : Say's letter to Dr. Caj)ers, 12 ; Say's description of 
Nocttia xylina, 12 ; Harris's letter to Doubleday, 13 ; Doubleday's reply, 
13 J Harris's letter to Affleck, 13; Mr, Wailes's determination, 13; Mr. 
Grote's adoption of the genus Anomis, 14 ; Mr. Grote's adoption of Hiib- 
ner's name Alctia aryillacea, 14; Hiibner's description, 14; scientific 
synonymy of Aletia argillacea, 15. 

chapter II. 
Past history of the cotton-worm 16 

Scarcity of material, 16 ; sources of information, IG ; is the cotton-worm 
indigenous? IG; early history of cotton in the United States, 17 ; the iden- 
tity of the South American chenille of the last century with the cotton- 
worm of to-day, 18; Fabricius's ^ocfwa (70ssi/2>ii, 18; Dr. Chisholm's descrij)- 
tion of the chenille of Guiana, 18 ; the cotton-worm in Guiana in the 

' early part of the 18th century, 19 ; the cotton-worm in the Bahamas in 

the 18th century, 19 ; the appointment of a. committee by the general 
assembly of the Bahamas to investigate the injuries to cotton, and their 
report, 19 ; emigration of French planters from the West Indies to Georgia, 
in 1801, on account of the chenille, 19 ; first recorded appearance of the 
worm in the United States, 19 ; the worm in 1804, 20; from 1804 to 1825, 
20; 1825,20; 1826,21; 1829,21; 1830,21; 1831,21; 1832,21; 1833,21; 
1834, 21 ; 1835, 21 ; 1836, 21 ; 1837, 21 ; 1838, 21 ; 1839, 21 ; 1840, 21 ; 1841, 22 ; 
1842,22; 1843,22; 1844,22; 1845,23; 1846,23; 1847,26; 1848,27; 1849, 
27 ; 1850, 27 ; 1851, 27 ; 1852, 27 ; 1853, 27 ; 1854, 27 ; 1855, 27 ; 185G, 27 ; 1857, 
27 ; 1858, 27 ; 1859, 27 ; 1860, 27 ; 1831, 27 ; 1832, 27 ; 1863, 28 ; 1864, 28 ; 1865, 
28 ; 1866, 28 ; 1857, 29 ; 1868, 30 ; 1889, 31 ; 1870, 31 ; 1871, 32 ; 1872, 33 ; 1873, 
34; 1874,40; 187.5,42; 1876,43; 1877, 44; 1878,45; view of destructive 
years, 23 ; review of the literature up to 1847, 26 ; first proposal of the 
migration theory, 26 ; Dr. Gorham's paper, 26 ; prevalence of parasites, 
26 ; history of the use of Paris green as a remedy, 38 ; the Department 
of Agriculture circular of 1873, 39; Mr. Grote's i^aper on migration, 41; 
Mr. Glover's views, 42 ; beginning of the cotton-insect investigation, 45 ; 
table of appearances of the worm and the amount of damage done from 
1804 to 1878, by counties, 47. 

Statistics of losses G3 

Difficulties in estimating, 63; years of losses, 63; general estimates of loss, 
66; ratio of loss between early and late crops, 66; estimates of loss by 
States, 67; Alabama, 67; Georgia, 68; Mississippi, 68; Louisiana, 68; 
Texas, 69; Florida, 69; North Carolina, 69; South Carolina, 69; Tennes- 
see, 69 ; Arkansas, 69; summary 69; table of average losses, 70. 



II TABLE OF CONTENTS. 

The cottox-worm in other countries .. 71 

Confined to the Western Hemisiihere, 71 ; insects aifecting the crop in East- 
ern Hemisphere, 71 ; extent of injuries in West Indies, 71 ; in Mexico, 72; 
in British Guiana, 72 ,* in Dutch Guiana 73 ; in Brazil, 74. 

chapter hi. 

Habits axd natural history 75 

The egg, 75; larva, 76; habits of young larva, 76; mimber of molts, 78; jump- 
ing of larvae, 79 ; marching, 79 ; odor of infested cotton-fields, 79 ; belief 
that larvae will only eat cotton of a certain maturity, 80 ; other food of 
larvae than leaves, 80; time required for the development of larva, 80; ex- 
tent of ravages, 81 ; other food plants, 81 ; preparation for pupation, 82 ; 
description of full-grown larva, 82 ; variation in coloration, 83 ; pupa, 83 ; 
adult, 83 ; food of adult, 84 ; nectar of extra fioral glands, 84 ; fruits, 86 } 
poTvcr of piercing the rinds of fruits, 66; i>osition of moth while at rest, 
88 ; age of moth at oviposition, 88 ; number of eggs laid by a single moth, 
88; duration in adult state, 88; number of broods, 88; powers of flight, 
89 ; northern occurrence of Aletia, 89 ; description of adult, 90 ; the "three 
crops of worms," 90; disappearance of third crop, 91; disappearance of 
last brood, 92 ; first appearance of the worms in spring, 97 ; hibernation, 
99; journal of Mr. Schwarz's search for hibernating cotton-moths, 102; 
Mr. Aflleck on hibernation, 100 ; Mr. Humphreys, 106 ; conclusions, 108. 

chapter IV. 

The THEORY OF migrations OF the moth „ 109 

Proposed by Thomas Afiieck, 109 ; Dr. Gorham's statement of the theory, 
109; Dr. Burnett's paper, 113 ; Mr. Grote's jiapor, 115; examination of the 
data advanced by the theorists, 118; conclusions, 121; influence of winds 
on immigration of moths, 121. 

chapter v. 
Influence of weather 133 

Is a mild or severe winter the more liable to be followed by a bad worm 
year ? 133 ; is wet or dry weather the more favorable to the increase of the 
worms ? general oiiinion, 134 ; former methods of accounting for facts, 134 ; 
Mr. Davis's communication on his ant-theory, 134 ; testimony of others, 
136; conclusions, 137. 

cii^vpter VI. 

Natural enemies of the cotton- worm 138 

(a) Vertebrate enemies 138 

Hogs, 138; dogs, 138; cats, 138; raccoons, 138; opossums, 138; bats, 
138; importance of birds, 139; negative evidence, 139; domestic fowls, 
139 ; testimony of authors, 139 ; testimony of correspondents, 140 ; con- 
cerning wild birds, 141 ; list of birds observed to eat the cotton-worm, 
141; the English-sparrow question, 142; need of carefully looking 
ui)on both sides of the questions, 143 ; letter from Prof. F. H. King, 
143 ; experience in Georgia, 143 ; the discussion of the Nuttal Club, 
144 ; Dr. Hagen's letter, 150 ; the opinion of Dr. Elliot Coues, 152 ; 
letter of Dr. T. M. Brewer, 156; letter of John Galvin, 156; general 
advice on the subject, 158 ; list of insectivorous birds occurring in the 
cotton belt, 159. 

(&) Invertebrate enemies 162 

Freda ccous : Use of the terms predaceous and jiarasitic, 162; spiders, 
162 ; aphis lions, 164 ; musquito hawks, 164 ; rear-horses, 165 ; the 
spined soldier bug, 106 ; the green soldier bug, 167 ; the thick-thighed 



TABLE OF CONTENTS. Ill 

(h) Invertebrate enemies — Continued. 

metapodius, 1G7; the devil's horse, 168; the rapacious soldier bug, 
1G9; the asilus Hies, ITO'; tiger beetles, 173; ground beetles, 174; sol- 
dier beetles, 175 ; lady bugs, 17G ; the boll-worm, 179 ; the grass- 
worm, 179 ; wasps, 180 ; ants, 181 ; general testimony, 184 ; Dr. Mc- 
Cook's report, 182. 

ParasiUe : Former notices of parasites, 190 ; Dr. Gorham's account, 190 ; 
Mr. Affleck's account, 191 ; Mr. Glover's account, 191 ; Dr. Phares's 
mention, 192 ; Mr. Jones's account, 192 ; the cotton-worm egg para- 
site, 193 ; general remarks on chalcididae, 193 ; the ovate chalcis, 194 ; 
Cirrosjjiliis esiints, 19o; unnamed chalcid parasite, 196; Didietyum zig- 
zag, 197 ; general remarks on ichneumonidae, 198; the yellow-banded 
ichneumon, 198; the ring-legged i>impla, 200; Cryptus nuncius, 201; 
the tachina flies, 202; the flesh flies, 204; Phora aletiae, 208; sum- 
mary, 211. 

chapter VII. 

Remedies 215 

Report of experiments by Mr. Trelease, 215; preventive measures, 230; pro- 
tection of insectivorous birds, 230; encouragement of the insect enemies 
of the cotton- worm, 230; thorough cultivation, 231 ; destruction of eggs, 
231 ; collecting larvae by hand, 231 ; destruction of larvae by poisons, 232 ; 
Paris green, 232; Texas cotton-worm destroyer, 233; London purple, 234; 
Johnson's dead-shot, 234 ; objections to the use of arsenic and its com- 
pounds, 234; carbolic acid, 235; kerosene, 235; pyrethrum, 236; modes 
of applying poisons, 236 ; wet poisons, 238 ; Whitman's fountain pump, 
239 ; Doughtry's machine, 243; Willis's machine, 243; Johnson's machine, 
244 ; dry poisons, 245 ; Young's dusting apparatus, 246 ; Allen's machine, 
247 ; Willis's machine for dry poisons, 248 ; Davis's machine, 249 ; Levy's 
machine, 250 ; Eldridge's machine, 251 ; Robinson's machine, 252 ; de- 
struction of larvae by machinery: Helm's machine, 253; Ewing's ma- 
chine, 255; destruction of pupae, 256. 

Destruction of moths : General testimony, 256 ; poisoned sweets, 257 ; testi- 
mony, 258; observations of Professor Smith, 259; observations of Pro- 
fessors Willet aud Comstock, 260 ; fruit recommended, 261 ; best poison, 
261 ; advisability of use of poisoned sweets, 262 ; Heard's moth trap, 262 ; 
fires, 262; trap lanterns, 263; Colonel Lewis's lantern, 263; Mr. Trelease's 
evidence, 264 ; conclusions in regard to the use of lanterns, 264 ; B. F. 
McQueen's lantern, 265; I. G. G. Garrett's lantern, 266; J. R. Duke's 
lantern, 267; J. R. Stephens's invention, 267; Richard Pitman's moth 
trap, 268 ; C. R. Dudley's moth trap, 269 ; G. C. Cranston's lantern, 270 ; 
E. D. Pugh's lantern, 271 ; Thomas Byrne's lantern, 272; Mark Rigel's in- 
vention, 273 ; J. Stith's lantern, 274. 

chapter viii. 
Bibliography , 276 

PART IL 

THE BOLL-WORM. 

chapter i. 
Importance of the subject 287 

Comparison of the destruction caused by the cotton-worm and the boll- 
worm, 287; testimony of correspondents, 288; iniury to corn, 289; esti- 
mates of damage by boll-worm exaggerated, 289; insects causing lalliug 
of bolls and buds, the work of which is laid to the boll-worm, 290. 



IV ' TABLE OF CONTENTS. 

chapter ii. 

Natural history 292 

Xomcnclatitre : popular uaines, 292; scientific classification, 292 ; synonym, 
292. Geographical (UsirUndion, 293. Food plants : Identity of corn and 
boll worms, 294 ; on tomatoes, 295 ; on garden peas, 296; cliick-pea, 296 ; 
cow-pea, 296; string-beans, 297; Lima bean, 297; Eryihrina herhacea^ 
297 ; pumpkin, 297; red pepper, 297 ; squash, 297 ; rose mallow, 297 ; glad- 
iolus, 297 ; on Indian corn, bemp, tobacco, and lucerne, in Europe, 297. 
The egfi : description, 297 ; number of eggs laid by one female, 298 ; time 
and place of depositing the eggs, 298 ; duration of egg state, 299. The 
larva: habits of young larva, 299; description of young larva, 299; di- 
versity of color in larvae, 301 ; habits of mature larvae, 301 ; carnivorous 
propensities of boll-worm, 303. The chryftalin, ','>Q4. The moth: variation 
in markings, 306 ; time of flight, 306 ; food, 306. Number of hrooch, 307 ; 
corn-bud worms, 307 ; second brood, 307; third brood, 308; fourth brood, 
308 ; fifth brood, 308 ; variations, 309. Influence of weather, 309. 

chapter iii. 

Remedies 311 

Natural remedies, 311; toi>ping, 312; poisoning, 312; hand-picking, 312; 
rotation of crops, 313 ; destruction of chrysalides, 314 ; destruction of 
moths, 315. 

TART III. 

Nectar and its uses 319 

Early use of the word nectar, 319; modern definitions — Linnaeus, Gray, 
Sachs, Delpino, Dar>vin — proposed definition, 320; structure of nectar 
glands, 320 ; nectar either floral or extra floral, 320 ; homology and situation 
of gland«, 321 ; use of floral nectar ; exami)lo, the cotton flwwer, its structure, 
nectar, and visiting insects, 321 ; extra floral nectar of CoroniUa varia, and 
its use, 323; of the bonnet squash, 323; of Passiflora incarnata, 323; of 
Mnrcgraxna nepenthoides, 323; of PoinseHia pnlcherrbna, 324 ; of the invol- 
ucre of GosHyp'nim, 324; of the cow-pea, 325; houeydew, 326; glands ou 
the serrations of certain leaves, 326 ; ou the phyllodia of Acacia maijnifica, 
326 ; on the leaves of Gossypium, 327 ; on leaves of the bonnet sipiash, 327 ; 
nectar, protoidasmic bodies, and hollow thorns of Acacia sphaerocephala, 
and their use, 327; nectar on leaves and bracts of Cassia Occident alls, 'd2S; 
on leave* of species of Sarracenia, Darlinytoma, and Nepenthes, 328 ; classifi- 
cation of nectar according to its uses, 329; tabular representation of this 
classification, 329; habits of ants, 330; destructiveuess to vegetation of 
leaf-cutting species, 330 ; nocturnal activity of some, 330 ; means bj"- which 
plants are protected from their attacks, 330; greater secretion of glands 
of cotton by night than by day, 331 ; supposition that it might be hygro- 
scopic, 331; error of this supposition, explanation of the phenomena 
attending it, 331 ; injury done the plant by attracting moths of Aletia and 
Eeliothis, 331 ; this injury only in recent times-, 332 ; why natural selection 
does not remove the glands on account of this injury, 332 ; why natural 
selection should remove their activity if their secretion is a drain on the 
strength of the plant, 332 ; their activity in iirolific varieties of cotton an 
indication that the secretion of nectar taxes the vital force of a plant but 
little, 332 ; why active nectar glands in other species exist long after their 
utility has ceased, 332; use of glands of cow-pea, 332; habits of bees, 
wasps, ants, and humming-birds in visiting nectar-secreting plants, 333 ; 
brief summary bibliography, especially of articles written in the English 
language, 333. 



TABLE OF CONTENTS. V 

APPENDICES. 

Page. 
APPENDIX I ^ 347 

REPORTS OF SPECIAL AGENTS AND LOCAL OBSERVERS : — 

Eeport of A. R. Grote, of Buffalo, N. Y 351 

Report of E. A. Schwarz, of Washington, D. C 347 

Eeport of E. H. Anderson, M. D. , of Eirkwood, Miss 352 

Eeport of Judge TV. J. Jones, of Virginia Point, Tex 35'o 

Eeport of Prof. J. E. Winet,of,Ma£on, Ga 358 

Report of WiUiani Trcleasc, of Brooldgn, N. Y 361 

APPENDIX II 380 

ANSWERS OF CORRESPONDENTS TO THE 1878 CIRCULAR. 

Earliest year in which cotton was first grown, 380 ; earliest year in which 
the worm was seen, 384; years of nnusual abundance, 388; eftects of 
weather on the insect, 391 ; character of seasons most favorable to its in- 
crease, 394 ; character of summer and winter preceding severe worm 
years, 397 ; do wet summers favor its multiplication ? 400 ; effect of weather 
upon the eggs, 402 ; effect of weather upon the moths, 404 ; month of year 
when greatest injury is done, 406 ; statistics of losses during notable worm 
years, 409; prevailing direction and force of wind, 413; direction and 
force of the wind during February, 416 ; March, 417 ; April, 418 ; May, 
420 ; June, 421 ; are there winds from the south strong enough to coun- 
teract the trade winds ? 422 ; the prevailing direction of the wind from 
July till frost, 425 ; the side of a field on which the worms first begin 
work, 427 ; effect of local topographical features on extent of ravages, 
429 ; is there anj- other food plant ? 432 ; time of year when the moths 
are first noticed, 435 ; time of year when the worms are first noticed, 437 ; 
time of year when the last worms are seen, 440 ; number of broods, 442 ; 
other situations beside cotton leaves in which the worms, have beeu known 
to spin up, 445 ; has the chrysalis been known to survive a frost, or to be 
found iu a sound aud healthy condition in winter ? 448 ; has the moth been 
found hibernating f 451 ; how late in the spring has the moth beeu found 
alive? 454; vertebrate enemies of the cotton-worm, 456; invertebrate ene- 
mies, 459 ; estimates of the relative value of iJoisoned sugar, molasses 
and vinegar, and fires for Ivilliug the moths, 461 ; relative value of sweets 
smeared upon trees aud contained iu vessels, 465 ; what flowers are 
attractive to the moths, 467; influence of jute, 469 ; efforts to destroy the 
moths in winter quarters, 470 ; efforts to destroy the chrysalides, 472 ; 
efforts to destroy the eggs, 473 ; is Paris green the best poisonous mix- 
ture for destroying the worms f 475; injurious effects following the use 
of Paris green, 477; best and most effective method of destroying the 
worms, 480 ; the average cost per acre for protecting it by the best means 
known, 482 ; other cotton insects, 484. 
APPENDIX III. 

LIST OF CORRESPONDENTS 491 

INDEX 495 



LETTER TO THE COMMISSIONER. 



Washington, November 14, 1879. 

Sir : In accordance with the instrnctions wliich I received from you 
when entering upon my duties as Entomologist to the Department of 
Agriculture, I have the honor to submit a report of the investigation of 
insects injurious to the cotton i^lant, which has been carried on by this 
department. This investigation was begun July 1, 1878, and was con- 
tinued until the close of the present season. 

The following extract from the annual report of this department for 
1878 (j[)p. 210-215), giv^es the history of that part of the investigation 
conducted by my predecessor, Prof. C. V. Eiley. 

Pursuant to an appropriation by the last Congress for the purpose, and in accordance 
■with your instructions, I have carried on a special investigation of the insects injuri- 
ous to the cotton plant. The commission of inquiry was organized by the appoint- 
ment of the following gentlemen : As special agents, Prof. J. H. Comstock, of Ithaca, 
N. Y., whose position as professor of entomology in Cornell University and whose ex- 
perience with insects injurious to vegetation had well fitted him for such labor ; and 
Prof. A. E. Grote, of Buffalo, N. Y., whom a residence of several years at Demoj)olis, 
Ala., and a special study of the cotton-worm, had also well prepared for the inquiry. 
As local agents and observers : Dr. E. H. Anderson, of Kirkwood, Miss. ; AVilliam J. 
Jones, of Virginia Point, Tex. ; Prof. J. E. Willet, of Macon, Ga. ; and Prof. Eugene A. 
Smith, of Tuscaloosa, Ala. Mr. E. A. Schwarz, of Detroit, Mich., has also been en- 
gaged during the winter to visit all the Southern States and the West India islands, 
with a special vieAv of getting at the facts of hibernation. To Prof. Comstock was as- 
signed the cotton region of Arkansas and Tennessee, and of Mississippi and Alabama 
north of Vicksburg and Meridian and the Alabama Central Kailroad ; to Mr. Grote that 
of Florida and Georgia, and of Alabama south of the railroad mentioned ; while, with the 
assistance of the local observers, I have myself given more especial attention to the ex- 
tremities of the belt, viz, Texas, Louisiana, Southern Mississippi, and the Carolinas. 

The following circular-letter was prepared for the use of agents, and distributed, 
with corresponding blanks, to corresiiondents in the cotton belt. It will explain the 
scoj)e of the inquiry : 

Depaktment of Agriculture, 

Washington, D. C, July 22, 1878. 

Sir : The entomologist of the department having prepared a series of inquiries for 
the special scientific observers to whom has been assigned the duty of studying the 
history and depredation of the worm known as Aletla argillacea, as well as other iii- 
sects which injure the cotton plant, I have caused copies of these circulars to be printed 
and sent yon, in hope that you may feel interest enough in the subject to make report 
thereon. 

Should you do so, please observe carefully the following suggestions: 

Write only on one side of the paper blanks sent; and, if more room is desired to an- 
swer fully, write on another sheet, numbering and lettering to correspond with letter 
and number of question. 

If any special points arise before the termination of the season, please communicate 
freely, marking your envelope "cotton insects." 
Respectfully, &c., 

WM. G. LE DUG, Commissioner. 



EEPOET UPON COTTON INSECTS. 



THE COTTON-WORM. 

This insect (Alctia argillacea* Hilbu.) will uaturally receive most attention, being, 
as it is, by far tlie most injurious of the diftereut enemies of the cotton plant. Data 
are requested on all the following tojrics : 

PAST HISTORY OF THE COTTON-WORM. 

1. Give, so far as you can from trustworthy records, the earliest year in which cot- 
ton was grown in your Slate, county, or locality. 

1«. During what year (exact or approximate) did the worm first make its appear- 
ance in your locality, aud, as far as you are aware, in the State ; in other words, how 
many years elaj)sed after cotton first began to be grown before the worm began to 
work upon it ? 

1&. Specify the years when it has been unusually abundant and destructive. 

INFLUENCE OF THE WEATHER ON THE INSECT. 

'Z State what you know fiom experience of the effects of weather on the insect, and 
more ])articularly — ' 

2a. The character of seasons most favorable to its increase. 

21). The character of the summer and winter — whether wet or dry, mild or severe — 
that have preceded years in which the worm has been abundant and destructive. 

2c. Do wet sunnners favor its multiplication ? 

2d. Efi'ects of diftereut kinds of weather on the eggs. 

2e. Ettects of diftereut kinds of weather on the moths. 

2f. Month of year when greatest injury is done. 

STATISTICS OF LOSSES. 

3. Give, as correctly as you can, estimates of the loss to the crop in your county and 
State during uotable cotton-worm years. 

MIGRjiTIONS OF THE MOTHS. 

It is a well-established fact that the parent moth of the cotton-worm is often found 
in antunui nuiny hundred miles away from the cotton belt, and there is no reason to 
doubt that it is often carried by favorable winds to northward regions where it can- 
not perpetuate its species and must therefore perish. Mr. A. R. Grote aud others even 
believe that the species perishes each year Avith the plant, and that the moth always 
comes into the cotton States from more Southern countries, where the cotton plant is 
perennial ; in other words, that the moth is habitually migratory aud cannot survive 
the winter in the great cotton regions of the States. While there are many facts that 
lend weight to this theory, there is, also, much to be said against it ; and we desire to 
collect all facts that in any way bear on the question. While we hope to get much 
valuable information on this head from the Signal Bureau, we also ask for the expe- 
rience of correspondents. 

4. Please state, therefore, as nearly as you can from the records, the prevailing direc- 
tion and force of the wind in yoiu' locality, fii'st, 

4rt. In the month of February ; second, 

45. In the month of March ; third, 

4c. In the month of April ; fourth, 

4d. Jn the month of May ; fifth, 

4e. In the month of June ; sixth, 

4/. Whether, in your opinion, there are winds fi-om the south that are sufficiently 
strong and constant to counteract the prevailing trade-winds which are toward the 
equator. 



* The Noctua xylina of Say. 



CIRCULAR. 5 

4f/. The prevailing direetion of the wind from July 1 ill frost. 
4/(. T^;e side of a field on which the worms first hegiu to work. 
4i. Do local topograiihical features iufiuence the extent of the worm's ravages f 
4/. Does or can the worm feed upon any other plant than cotton, and have you ever 
known it to do so ? 

IIAUrrS AND NATURAL HISTORY. 

These have already heen studied, and are pretty well known ; hut experience will 
differ somewhat with locality, and we call attention to the following topics : 

.5. State the time when the first moths are noticed in your locality. 

5a. Date when the first worms have heen noticed in past years. 

5b. Date when the last worms have heen seen in past years, or were noticed the 
present year. 

5c. Numher of hroods or generations of the worms generally produced. 

M. In what other situations hesides the folded cotton leaves have you known the 
worms to spin ? 

5e. Have you ever known the chrysalis to survive a frost, or to he found in sound 
and healthy condition in winter ? 

5/ Have you ever found the moth hibernating or flying during mild winter weather ? 

bg. How late in the spring has the moth been found alive 1 

NATURAL ENEMIES. 

It is a little singular that no enemies of the cotton-worm have hitherto heen re- 
ported. That the insect has its enemies, both sjiecial and general, there can be little 
doubt, and we would ask particular attention to the following topics : 

6. Are any birds, quadrupeds, or reptiles known to attack the insect in your locality ? 
6a. Are any predaceous insects or parasites known to prey upon it, either in the egg, 

larva, or chrysalis state ? 

REMEDIES AND METHODS OF DESTRUCTION. 

7. What has been the result of the efforts to allure and destroy the moths, and what 
methods have proved most satisfactory ? Give your estimate of the relative value for 
this purpose of poisoned sugar, molasses and vinegar, and fires. 

7a. Are the moths most attracted to sweetened substances when smeared onto trees, 
boards, etc., or when contained in vessels in or near which lamps may be lighted? 

7b. Are any flowers known to be attractive to the moth ? If so, specify them and 
their season of blooming. 

7c. AVhat do you know of your own observation of the influence of jute grown near 
or with the cotton ? 

7d. Has any eft'ort beeen made to destroy the moth in its winter quarters ? 

7e. Have any systematic and organized attempts been made to gather and destroy 
the chrysalides, or to facilitate their collection and destruction by furnishing inviting 
material for the worms to spin up in ? 

7/. What has been done toward destroying the eggs ? 

7/7. Has anything been found more generally useful and applicable or cheaper than 
the hse of the Paris green mixture to destroy the worms. 

7/i. Have you known of any injurious effects following the use of this poison, either 
to the plant, to man, or to animals ? 

7i. State what you consider the best and most effective method of destroying them 
in your section. 

7j. State the cost per acre of protecting a crop by the best means employed. 

l^°fVe shall be glad to receive figures, eWier pliotograplis or drawings, of machines or con- 
trivances employed for the wholesale use of the Paris green mixture, either in the fluid state or 
as a powder ; or any other kinds of machines or traps employed for the destruction of the in- 
sect. Models of such are still more desirable, and may be sent by express unpaid to the de- 
partment. 



KEPORT UPON COTTON INSECTS. 



OTHER COTTON INSECTS. 



There are uiauy other insects that attack and do more or less injury to the cotton 
plant. Many of these have been figured and referred to by the former entomologist 
to the dexiartment, Mr. Towuend Glover, but there is much yet to learn of their 
habits and natural history and of the best means of subduing them. Specimens of 
all insects that may be found upon the plant are, therefore, earnestly solicited, with 
accounts of their work and habits and the amount of injury they do. These si)eci- 
mens are best sent by mail, in tight tin or wooden boxes. If living (and all found 
feeding on the plant should thus be sent) a supply of food should be inclosed with 
them ; if first killed, they should be carefully packed in a little cotton to prevent 
shaking and breaking. 

13^ Corrcspoudcnts who desire to malce especial observations with a view of replying to this 
circular, and tvho iiish fitrthe information as to the best manner of preserving specimens' 
ivill receive assistance and further instructions ujjon communicating with the department. 

CHAS. V. RILEY, 

Entomologist. 

Two circumstances have somewhat interfered with the inquiry, viz, the yellow 
fever and the general freedom of the plant from the cotton- worm, the serious injuries 
of this last having been restricted to the cane-brake regions of Alabama and to the 
southwest counties of Georgia, especially the country between the forks of the Flint 
and Chattahoochee Rivers — the more malarious portions of either State. Its apjiear- 
auce n iiijui-ious numbers both hero and in South Texas was from four to six weeks 
later than usual, and this was one cause of the small amount of injury done. The 
weather at the time of their greatest abundance was wet and interfered with the ap- 
plication of remedies. 

Professor Comstock's observations were chiefly confined to that fertile cotton-grow- 
ing region along the line of the Alabama Central Railroad, known as the " cane-brake." 
He reach d Selma July 20. There he met many prominent planters, and from them 
collected important statistics respecting the occurreuce of the cotton- worm and the 
results of experiments in the use of remedies for this species. July 23 he began his 
field observations near Unioutown, Perry County, and from that time on, till the mid- 
dle of October, he was constantly engaged in studying the habits of cotton insects on 
plantations in Dallas, Perry, Hale, and Marengo Counties. His only absence from this 
region was from August 10 to August 15, when I directed him to make a trip through 
the State northward as far as Madison County, where much cotton is grown. Profes- 
sor Comstock has prepared a full and valuable report, which will be incorj)orated in 
the final report of the investigation. 

Professor Grote's operations will appear by the following extract from a brief re- 
port submitted. 

[Professor Grote's report is given in full in Appendix I of this work. J. H. C] 

Starting south myself the latter jiart of August, I passed through Tennessee to 
Mitchell County in Southwest Georgia, and thence, during September, througli the 
cotton sections of the southeastern part of that State and of the Caroliuas and Vir- 
ginia. I was at this time made painfully aware of the hindering etfects of the yellow 
fever. One can scarcely conceive of the panic and excitement that prevailed, even in 
regions where there was little or no dauger. But a few weeks before in the thicker 
cotton counties of Alabama and Georgia the prevailing topic of conversation, as I 
learned, was the work of the Cotton-worm. At the time of my visit its injuries were 
forgotten in the all-absorbing subject of the epidemic. Cotton fields were neglected, 
and in sight of acres of stripped and spindling stalks one heard but the universal re- 
frain — j'ellow fever, yellow fever. It seriously interfered with my own plans, and 
obliged me to avoid the very Mississippi cotton fields which I desired most to visit. 

Notwithstanding this serious drawback to the present year's operations, much that 
is valuable and important has been learned. There is a very general want of knowl- 



» THE WOEK OF 1879. 7 

edge among the people of tlie South regarding the real habits of the cotton-worm, and 
I find that the opinions of the most observant are seldom founded on intelligent ob- 
servation; and that such opinions are consequently of little value. This state of 
things is due to three evident causes : First, the general unhealthiness of the region 
in -which the insect does most damage, and the intense heat that prevails during the 
months when most of the observations must be made ; second, the fact that the culture 
of the crop is turned over to uneducated and unobserving negroes ; third, the failure 
to discriminate between the cotton-worm and the Boll-worm (Heliothis armigera) in 
their later stages, and the natural difficulty that besets the solution of some of th e 
questions, such as the winter habits of the Aletia. 

It had often been a wonder to me that no true parasite had ever been found infest- 
ing this insect since there scarcely exists a plant-feeding species that is not attacked 
by some parasite. No less than nine distinct species of these parasites have been dis- 
covered on the cotton-worm this summer, and this fact has an important bearing on 
several of the knotty questions that present themselves in our inquiry. Again, I had 
wondered what plants the moth naturally fed from, since it was known to be fond 
of sweets, and had, to my knowledge, done considerable injury by boring into various 
ripe fruits. The cotton plant is peculiar for having a gland on the under side of from 
one to three ribs of the more mature leaves, and a still larger gland at the outer base 
of the three lobes of the involucre. As soon as I learned that these glands secreted a 
sweetened liquid, I inferred that the plant would be found to furnish nourishment to 
the moth as well as to the larva, and drew attention to this belief in the Atlanta, Ga., 
Constitution, of September 8, 1878. It was with no small degree of pleasure that at 
Bacoutou subsequently, in company with Professors Comstock and Willett, I was able 
to prove my anticipation correct, by studying the normal habits of the moth with a 
dark -lantern at night. The moth is, therefore, attracted to the jilant by the sweets 
which this last affords, and as these sweets are first produced when the plant begins to 
flower and fruit, we have here a possible explanation of the well-known fact that the 
worm is seldom noticed on the young plant till about the time of fruiting. AVe have 

so discovered that the moth feeds on the honey copiously secreted from glands oc- 
cui-ring at the apex of the peduncle just above the pods of the cow-pea (Dolychos), ex- 
tensively grown through the South as a forage plant ; also on the sweet exudation 
from the flowers of Paspalmn lave, a tolerably common grass. It is by taking advan- 
tage of this love for sweets which the moth possesses that we shall i)robably arrive at 
one of the most effectual ways of preventing the ravages of the worm, for if we can 
allure the first moths of the season to certain death, we nip the evil in the bud. 

Upon the 1st of May, 1879, Professor Eiley's resignation taking effect 
at that date, I was placed by you in charge of the Entomological Division. 
The printing of a reiDort upon the investigation had just been ordered. 
Two months of the fiscal year yet remained ; and my first step was to 
secure the appointment of Mr. William Trelease, of Brooklyn, N. Y., as 
a special agent. Mr. Trelease was instructed to proceed to the cane- 
brake region of Alabama, in order to make and report observations upon 
the first appearance of the worms, and upon several points respecting 
which there was doubt. 

Upon reviewing the material which was at hand for the report it was 
found to consist chiefly of biological, statistical, and chronological data ; 
but little work had been done as yet upon experiments with remedies, 
it having been Professor Eiley's plan to leave the practical part of the 
investigation for the season of 1879. It was therefore deemed advisable 
that Mr. Trelease should be kept in the field until the appearance of the 



8 KEPORT UPON COTTON INSECTS. 

so-called " third crop " of tlie worms, in order that some efficient work 
might be done in this direction, and in order that the report might not 
be lacking in so important a particular. 

Mr. Trelease, therefore, remained in Dallas County, Alabama, through 
the summer, confirming the observations of the agents of last year, and 
conducting an extensive series of experiments. He was recalled to this 
city September 15. 

The report has been prepared as quickly- as was consistent with the 
other labors of the division. Work wa's begun ujion it as soon as I 
entered upon my duties, and has been progressing during the entire 
season. 

Although a great part of the investigation was conducted under the 
direction of my distinguished predecessor, it is due to him, as well as to 
myself, to state that the wTiter alone is responsible for the opinions ex- 
pressed and the conclusions drawn in the body of this report. 

I take pleasure in acknowledging the valuable aid rendered by the 
special agents and local observers of the Entomological Division, whose 
names have already been given. Their special reports appear in Ap- 
pendix I of this work. An extended correspondence has been carried 
on with each of these gentlemen, and much valuable data thus obtained 
which does not appear in their reports. 

Other correspondents of the Department have rendered important 
assistance, especially in the form of replies to the circular already 
quoted. The information thus obtained has been classified and forms 
Appendix II of this work. The names of these correspondents are given 
in Appendix III. 

It is not possible to give here full credit for the numerous favors and 
courtesies received from the people of the South by those connected 
with this investigation. Wherever we went we were received with the 
utmost hosi)itality ; and all seemed anxious to facilitate our researches. 

I am indebted to Dr. H. A. Hagen and Dr. D. L. Phares for important 
bibliographical references ; to Mr. Edmund Burgess for determinations 
of Biptera ; to Kev. H. C. McCook for the descriptions of ants and 
notes on their habits, given at the close of Chapter VI ; to Dr. P. E. 
Hoy for information respecting the occurrence of Aletia argillacea in 
Wisconsin ; to the Charleston Library Society for the loan of books ; to 
Mr. E. T. Cresson for determination of Hymcnoptera ; to Prof. F. H. 
King and Dr. Elliott Cones for information respecting the English spar- 
row, to Mr. Eobert Eidgway for a list of the insectivorous birds of the 
South; and to Prof. C. Y. Eiley for determinations of parasites of Aletia 
argillacea. 

The original drawings of insects have been made from nature, chiefly 
by Mr. Gc. Marx ; a few were drawn by Mr. Th. Pergande, who also ren- 
dered valuable assistance in making biological observations on the in- 
sects bred in my oflice. Assistance was rendered by Mr. C. E. Dodge 



ACKNOWLEDGMENTS. 9 

in the preparations of the sections referring to statistics of losses and 
to winds. 

I wisli to acknowledge, especially, the efiacient assistance of Mr. L. O. 
Howard, who has aided me during the preparation of the entke report. 
I am, sir, with much respect, your obedient servant, 

J. HENRY COMSTOCK, 

„ „ Untomoloqist, 

Hon. Wm. G. Le Due, 

Commissioner of Agriculture. 



Plate I. 




Pauilt-d ftnm Ifatiuc >>yGiHi Maix. 



THE COTTON WORM 

Alc( ia <»r^iilacca .( H.i.b„ii > 



AHo(in&Co.Iilhonaislic3aUiiiioi« 



THE OOTTON-WORM. 



CHAPTEE I. 

CLASSIFICATION AND NOMENCLATURE. 

In glancing over the literature on the insect under consideration we 
find that it is known by various popular titles. The "0/tewiZ^e" is a 
name which still holds in many parts of the South. It was originally 
introduced by the French planters emigrating from Martinique and 
other French West Indies to Georgia in 1801-1802, and also by the 
Ff ench settlers of Louisiana. Although literally signifying nothing but 
caterjnUar, it has come to be applied to this insect distinctively, as the 
caterpillar j)flr excellence. The " Army- worm'' is a title which has often 
been applied to this insect, but is one which should be avoided on ac- 
count of the danger of confounding it with the Army-worm of the North. 

In order to avoid this danger many have called it the " cotton army- 
worm." Mr. Glover has given his sanction to this name in the Depart- 
ment of Agriculture reports. It has also been called by many writers 
" the cottou-cateri)illar," a name sufficiently distinctive. By many it is 
known by the simple term "the caterpillar" in contradistinction to "the 
worm" as commonly applied to the boll- worm. By others, and these 
are by far the majority, it is termed "the cotton -worm." This latter 
name we shall adopt in this report as being the shortest and simplest 
and best adapted for a popular name. The moth has generally been 
called the "cotton-fly" or "cotton-moth" or " cotton- worm moth." 

And now, briefly, as to the scientific classification of the cotton-worm 
moth. Primarily it belongs to the order " Lepidoptera " or scaly- 
winged insects. All Lei)idoptera are characterized by having four mem- 
branous wings covered with imbricated scales (appearing to the naked 
eye as the so-called " dust " of a butterfly's wing) and by having the 
mouth parts formed for sucking, the maxillae forming a tube of greater 
or less length. The order of Lepidoptera is divided into two sections — 
UhoiKilocera (including all butterflies) and Heterocera (including all 
moths.) The Heteroceres are subdivided into the following families : 

1. SpJdngidae. — Hawk-moths or humming-bird moths. 

2. ^geriadae. — Clear -winged moths. 

3. Zygaenidae, — A family to which no popular name has been given. 

4. Bomhycidae. — Spinners. 

5. Noctuidae. — Owlet-moths. 

11 



12 REPORT UPON COTTON INSECTS. 

6. Geometridae. — Measaring-worin motlis. 

7. Pyralidae. — Su out-moths. 

8. Tortricidae. — Leaf rollers. 

9. Tineidae. — Leaf miners. 

10. Pteroplioridae. — Plume moths. 

Family 5 — the Noctuidae — is characterized by having the body ro- 
bust, the anteunse almost constantly simple, the thorax stout and often 
crested, the mouth parts well develoi^ed, the spiral tongue being greatly 
elongated. The wings in repose are ordinarily deflexed at the sides of 
the body, and the abdomen is of an elongate conical form. 

Mr. Grote in his "List of the ISToctuidae of North America"* places 
all North American Noctuids in the three tribes, Bomhyciae, Noctuae, 
and yoctuo-Phalfniidi, Ifoctuae containing the bulk of the family, Bom- 
hyciae and Noctuo-Phalcvnidi simply the forms osculating with the pre- 
ceeding and succeeding families. To this tribe Noctuae belong many very 
injurious insects in addition to the cotton-worm. All of the cut- worms, so 
destructive to many crops, the boll-worm, the army-worm of the North, 
the "grass-worm" and many others of lesser importance, the wheat- 
head army- worm, the corn and iiotato stalk borers {Gortyna), and others. 
To the genus Aletia of this tribe Noctuae, the cotton- worm moth be- 
longs, and it is known by the specific name of argiUacea. 

The history of the synonymy of Aletia is interesting. On January 
1, 1827, Dr. C. W. Capers, who had been making a study of the cotton- 
worm, sent specimens for identification to Thomas Say, then Professor 
of Natural History in the University of Pennsylvania. Mr. Say an- 
swered : 

I have carefully examined the couteuts of the box which accompanied your letter. 
It contained several cotton-moths which are much injured, but as far as I am enabled 
to judge by their remaining characters, they constitute a new species, of which I have 
made the following description. t 

NocTUA Fabr. 

N. XYLiXA. — Olivaceous, tinged with vinaceous; superior wings with a black spot. 

Description. — Head vinaceous, with a. small whitish tuft before; antennje pale 
honey-yellow, of moderate length, covered with scales above and short hair beneath; 
labrum rounded, small; mandibles conic, whitish, with a fascicle of sericeous fulvous 
hair on the inner base ; maxilltB as long as the antenuiP, papillaceons towards the tip ; 
palpi densely covered with short equal scales, which are intermixed rufous and white ; 
second joint much longer than the fii'st; third joint very distinct, conic, linear; thorax 
vinaceous with more or less of olivaceous, particularly on the sides ; sujierior wings 
vinaceous, towards the iiosterior margin obsoletely olivaceous ; a little above and 
partly on the second bifurcation of the post costal nervure is an oblique sub-oval, 
blackish spot, in which are paler scales, forming almost a double pupil ; posterior to 
this siiot is an obsolete, much-undulated, interrupted, dull rufous line, reaching the 
anal margin near the middle and the costal margin at two-thirds the distance from 
the humerus; behind this line is a distinct one, and in some specimens a still less dis- 
tinct one toward the base of the wing, accompanied by a small spot ; inferior wings 

*Bull. Buff. Soc. Nat. Sci. 1875. 

t Say's Entomology of N. A. Ed., Le Conte, I. 370. 



SYNONYMY. 13 

on the inferior page, with a slight, slender, rufous hand ; anterior tiljiie with a spine ; 
posterior tihiiB with spines on the middle and tip ; claws distinct, emargiuate beneath. 

Length to tip of superior wings nine-tenths of an inch. 

Larva sixteen-footed, spotted ; eyes spotted ; beneath immaculate, simple. Pupa 
simple, dark chestnut or blackish ; three of the abdominal segments with dilated 
rufous, posterior margins. 

In the above description, if any errors occur as regards color, you can rectify them 
from more recent and perfect specimens. 

Considering that the specimens received were badly rubbed, this 
description is a very accurate one. 

In ISiG, Mr. T. Affleck, of Washington, Adams Count}^, Mississippi, 
sent Harris, the great Xew England Entomologist, specimens of the moth 
for identification. Harris was in doubt, and wrote Doubleday, the Eng- 
lish Lepidopterist, on the subject, as follows:* 

Probably you have heard of the "army-worm," a caterpillar that invades the cot- 
ton fields of the Southern States, and has this year destroyed at least one-thii'd of the 
crop in Louisiana and Mississippi. Several communications have been made to me 
respecting it, and a correspondent in Mississippi having, as he states, profited by my 
book on destructive insects, so far as to be able to trace the transformation of the army- 
worm has recently sent to me in a letter some specimens of the moth developed from 
this worm or caterpillar', with a description of the catei-pillar. The moth was new to my 
collection, and, though a good deal injured in transmission, is yet in such a state that 
the genus might be made out by one familiar with the modern genera. From the habits 
of the larva it seems to me that the insect must approach near to the genus Cosmia. 
* * * Mr. Say described the moth from very bad specimens under the name of iVbc- 
t)ta xyUna. I have been requested to redescribe it correctly, and wish to give to it the 
name of the modern genus to which it may belong. 

Mr. Doubleday, in his answer (April 2, 1847), said :t " Your cotton-moth 
is near to Ophvma, but is a new genus; We have nothing exactly the 
same. I have searched through Abbott's drawings and cannot find it,'' 
He also expressed the same opinion in a meeting of the London Ento- 
mological Society of nearly the same date.| 

Harris never redescribed the insect, but, after receiving Doubleday's 
letter, wrote to Mr. Affleck : 

The cotton-moth will prove to be tlie type of a new or undetermined genus. Fabri- 
cius describes an entirclij different insect under the name of Noctua gossypii. Say gives a 
pretty good description of the true cotton-moth, styling it Noctua xylina ; which was a 
good and proper name for the insect, as the subject was understood by Mr. Say, who 
did not pretend to know much about the Lepidoptera. Ophiusa xyJina better accords 
toith the present state of the scienccA 

Mr. B. 0. L. Wailes, former State geologist of Mississippi, and corre- 
sponding member of the Boston Society of Natural History, has pub- 
lished an account of the cotton-worm, || in which he speaks of it by the 
scientific name of JDepressaria gossypioides. As this error of Mr. Wailes 
has misled many, it is worthy of jnention here. The principal insect 

* Entomological paj)er8 of T. W. Harris, Boston, 1869, p. 169. 

tJ&iU,p. 173. 

t Trans. Ent. Soc, London, 1848, Proc. 33. 

^ Affleck's Southern Almanac, 1851, p. 49. 

II Agriculture and Geology of Miss., 1854, pp. 146-148. 



14 REPORT UPON COTTON INSECTS. 

enemy to cotton culture in India lias been named by Mr. Saunders- Be- 
pressaria gossypiella.* This insect is a Tineid motli, the larva of which 
bores into the forming cotton seed. Mr. Wailes had evidently either 
seen the name attached to an insuflBcient descrii)tion or had ignored the 
description entirely, presupposing its identity with our cotton-worm 
moth from its similar powers of destruction. 

In 1864 Mr. A. R. Grote, having carefully compared the descriptions of 
Guende's Anomis bipunctinaf and Say's Koctua xyVma., came to the con- 
clusion that they were synonymous. | Say's specific name having the 
priority, bipunctina fell to the ground, while the more modern genus 
Anomis of Huebner took the place of the Fabrician genus Noctua, and 
the cotton-moth was for some ten years or more known as Anomis xylina 
Say. 

In 1874 Mr. Grote discovered that Hiibner had in 1822 § described and 
figured the cotton-moth under the name of Aletia argiUacea; and, as 
Mr. Grote had in the mean time made himself familiar with the type of 
the genus Anomis {A. erosa Hiibn.) and found it to differ " structiually 
and genericaUy from the cotton-worm moth," he decided that Hiibner's 
combined name should hold in the future, and accordingly introduced it 
into his " List of the Noctuidte of North America," 1874. Mr. Grote also 
announced this conclusion in a paper read before the Hartford meeting 
of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. || We 
shall in this report follow the highest American authority on the group ; 
but to show the doubt that may still exist as to the identity of A^io^nis 
xylina and Aletia argiUacea, and as a matter of curiosity, we quote the 
original description of the cotton-moth; it will also serve as a specimen 
of Huebnerian workmanship. 

200. 

ALEXIA ARGILLACEA. 

Aus Baliia. Vom Herrn Sommer abgelassen. Eine Noctua gemiina and HeUophila 
hneata. Sie iat der A. ViteUina^ sehr ahnlicli, hat aber in niclits eino Gleichlieit mit 
ilir und anf den Schwingen einen weiasen Punct. Ihre Abilduug, 399, 400 stellt ein 
mannUches muster vor.** 

Figures 399 and 400 are very highly-colored representations of what 
may, by a stretch of the imagination, be called the cotton- worm moth. 
The figure of A. viteUina represents a moth with reddish-brown prima- 
ries, with a reniform spot on each, and uncolored secondaries. 

• Trans. Eut. Soc, London, 1843, vi, p. 284. 

tNoctuelites, vol. II, p. 401 (1852). 

t Proc. Ent. Soc. Phil. Ill (1864), p. 541. 

§ Zutriige zur Sammlung Exotischer Schmettlinge 2"=« Hund. 200 pi., 399. 

II Proc. A. A. A. S. vol. 23, part II, p. 13 (1874.) 

If Hiibn. Noc, 379, Vitellina. 

** This may be very freely translated : "From Bahia. Left by Mr. Sommer. A true 
noctiiid, and a specimen of ReliopMla lineata. It is very like A. Vitellina, except that 
it has a white dot on the wings. Figs. 399 and 400 represent the male." 



SYNONYMY. 15 

The synonymy of the cotton-moth then remains as follows : 

Aletia argillacea, Hiibner, Zutr. zu Sam. Exot. Schmet. 2«^ Himd., p. 32. n. 200, figs. 

399, 400. 
Noctua xylina, Say. Correspondence relative to the insect that destroys the Cotton 

Plant. New Harmony Disseminator, 1830, 
Anomis grandlpuncta, GuemSe, Noctu61ites, vol. 2, p. 400 (1852). 
Anoniis bipuncUna, Guen6e, NoctudUtes, vol. 2, p. 401, id., vol. 3, p. 397 (1852). 
Anomis xylina, Grote, Proc. Ent. Soc. Phil., vol. 3, p. 541, 1864. 
Aletia argillacea, Hiibn., Grote, List Noctuidee of North America, p. 24, 1874. 



16 REPORT UPON COTTON INSECTS. 



CHAPTER 11. 

PAST HISTORY OF THE COTTON-WORM. 

The materials for the early history of the cotton- worm and its ravages 
are scauty enough. The literature, as may be seen by reference to the 
bibliographical list, has been far from extensive, and, from the very 
nature of the subject, so utilitarian in its character that all points not 
relating directly to remedy have been looked upon as useless. This, 
taken in connection with the fact of the recentness of all papers of value, 
oflers but a poor outlook for an exhaustive history of the cotton-worm of 
long ago. Yet such material has not been entirely wanting. Scraps from 
this place and scra])S from that, when patched together, have made a tissue 
containing many tangible points of information, and atford a fair running 
account of the earlier appearances of Aletia. As we near the present 
date, however, our sources of information become more varied, and the 
information itself more accurate, until for the last fifteen years the ma- 
terial for a nearly complete chronology is at hand. The main sources of 
information have l)een three in number: First, what the literature con- 
tains upon this point; second, the answers of corresj)ondents to ques- 
tions 1, la, Ih, and 3 of the 1S78 circular letter (see introduction); third, 
the regular monthly reports of the statistical correspondents of this de- 
partment upon the condition of crops, as contained in the "Monthly Re- 
ports of the Department of Agriculture," from 18GC to 1876, inclusive, 
and in the occasional bulletins of the department since 1876. 

The first important point to be cleared up in the history of the cotton- 
worm is, whether it is really indigenous to this country or whether it 
has been introduced from abroad. On this point Mr. Grote has the fol- 
lowing : * 

Now Hiibner describes the moth of the cotton-worm at first as from Bahia. Suffi- 
cient testimony as to the indent! ty of our insect with one destructive to the West 
Indian, Mexican, and Brazilian perennial cotton is at hand, and the fact is established. 
In a classificatory point of view the affinities of the cotton-worm are with Southern 
rather than with Northern forms of its family, as I have already pointed out. 

So far as the past history goes, it upholds Mr. Grote in the belief that 
Aletia is really an indigene of South America and the West Indies, and 
creates a probability that its spread in this country was originally the 
result of an accidental introduction or of immigration on the part of the 
moth. Were the insect indigenous to this country its history would be 
coeyal with the history of cotton culture within the present limits of the 
United States, but, upon referring to the records, we find that this is 
not so. Short staple cotton was grown quite extensively as a garden 

*Proc. A. A. A. S. XXIII (1874), Part II, p. 15. 



IS THE COTTON WOEM INDIGENOUS? 17 

crop in Maryland, Virginia, tlie Carolinas, and Georgia for many years 
previous to the Revolution. In a " History of Virginia, by a Native and 
Inhabitant of the Place," published in 1722, we find that cotton was 
grown in that colony at least 130 years before the Revolution. In Gar- 
roll's Historical Collections of South Carolina many references are made 
to the early culture of cotton. The writer of a pamphlet on "A Brief 
Description of the Province of Carolina and the Coast of Florida," 
published in 1666, mentions the fact that at the Cape Fear settlements 
they grew "indico, tobacco, very good, and goUoyi-wooV In the same 
collection is found Dr. Hewitt's early account of Georgia and South 
Carolina, in which he alludes to cotton particularly, and describes the 
method of planting. 

He says that cotton, " though not of importance enough to have occu- 
pied the whole attention of the colonists, might, nevertheless, in con- 
i unction with other staples, have been rendered profitable and useful." 

"In Wilson's account of the 'Province of Carolina in America,' pub- 
lished in 1682, it is stated that ' cotton of the Cyprus and Malta sort 
grows well and a good plenty of the seed is sent thither.' In Peter 
Purry's description of the Province of Carolina, drawn up in Charleston 
in 1731, ' flax and cotton ' are said to ' thrive admirably.'" * Cotton began 
to be exported toward the middle of the 18th century. In 1748 Charles- 
town exported 7 bags of cotton- wool, and in 1754 an additional quantity 
was shipped. Various quantities were exported up to the time of the 
Revolution, and during the war for Independence much of the country 
was supplied with home-grown, home-manufactured cotton cloths. In- 
stances could be multiplied without number, but are unnecessary to our 
purpose. In 1786 the celebrated Sea Island cotton was introduced into 
Georgia from the Bahamas (Long Island and Exuma), to which place 
it had been brought in 1785 from Anguilla, an island in the Carib Sea, t 
and this seems to have been the point from which the first great exten- 
sion of the cultivation of cotton in America dates. 

The first appearance of the cotton-worm in this country now on 
record was in 1793 in Georgia and South Carolina, after cotton had been 
grown for 150 years. This certainly would seem to indicate the intro- 
duction of the worm at that time or shortly j)revious. 

In Louisiana and Mississippi tlie evidence on this point seems to be 
more conclusive ; for, if the testimony of the early navigators is to be 
believed, cotton is indigenous around the mouth of the Mississii)pi. \ 

The plant was probably first cultivated by the early French colonists 

* Memoir on the Cotton Plant. W. E. Seabrook. Charleston, 1844. 

t Ure's Hist, of Cotton Manufacture, I, 150. 

X "Even as far north as the Meschacehe, or Mississippi, the early explorers of that 
river and its tributary streams saw 'cotton growing wild in the codd, and in great 
plenty.' " — Seabrook's Memoir, p. 5. 

Eespecting this statement of Seabrook's, however, Dr. Asa Gray writes: "I know 
of no authority whatever for indigenous Gossijpium on the Mississippi, nor for its cul- 
ture there before European settlement. I doubt if there is any." 
2 c I 



18 REPORT UPON COTTON INSECTS. 

from Santo Domingo. " Charlevoix, on his visit to I^atchez, in 1722, saw 
the cotton pLint growing in the garden of Sienr Le Noir, the company's 
clerk." 

"Bienville states in one of his dispatches, dated in April, 1735, that 
the cultivation of cotton proved advantageous." " Governor Yaudreuil, 
in a dispatch dated 1746, mentions cotton as among the articles received 
by the boats which came down annually from Illinois to New Orleans."* 

Cotton having been cultivated as early as this, it seems strange that we 
never hear of an appearance of the cotton-worm before 1801 in that sec- 
tion of the country. Yet that is absolutely the first reliable date that 
we have been able to find, and it certainly would seem to argue a recent 
introduction of the worm. 

The insufficiency and unreliability of the records may be urged against 
such argument as this, and with some degree of justice ; still it would 
seem as if so formidable an enemy to the plant would be mentioned 
whenever the culture of cotton was spoken of. 

As to the absolute identity of the insect which ravaged the cotton 
fields of Guiana and the West Indies in the latter part of the eighteenth 
century with our Xorth American cotton-worm, there can be little 
doubt. The only point making it at all uncertain is Fabricius' descrip- 
tion of a cotton-moth [Xoctua gossypii) from South America; the habits 
of which are similar to those of Alctia, and yet which is a different 
insect entirely, according to the description. t Yet, all things consid- 
ered, we may safely conclude that Fabricius' insect, although alike in 
habits, is not the important southern "Chenille." 

In a queer old article published in Brewster's Edinburgh Encyclope- 
dia, Dr. Chisolm, of Clifton, who had studied the chenille in Guiana in 
1801 and 1802, gives the following description of the insect in all its 
stages : 

Plialaeua geoinetra seticornis alis omnibus snb-grisois siib-angnlatis deflexis. 

Larva siibpilosa setulis iiigi-is interpositis: 12 poda, '20-annulata, dorso nigro uitido, 
liuea dorsali, lineolis gominis lateralibus llavesceutbiis alhis; abdomme alba flave- 
scente. 

Pupa obtecta, subovalis, fusca nigricens, coriacea. 

Habitat iu Guiana, Gossypii variis, forsan omnibus spcciobus, quarum folia, petioles 
fructusque etiam immeturos mira diraque voracitate, devorat. 

* Wailes Agric. Geol. of Miss., 1854, p. 141. 

t Fabricius' description is as follows: 
No. 286. Xoctua gossypii. 

Cristata alis deflexis fnsco cinereoqne variis: posticis hyalinis immacnlatis. 

Habitat in America meridioualis Parthenis liysterofero, gossypis polyi)liaga folia 
caulesqiie destruent. Dr. Pflug. Devoratur a meleagride Gallapavone, Ur. V. Kobr. 
Praecedenti (wliicb is Noctua histrionica from East Indies) nimis affiuis. AutenniB 
fuscjB. Thorax lobo antico distincto, postice cristatus, ciuereo fuscoque variegatus. 
Abdomen cineream. ALb anticaj mox magis fuso^e, mox magis cinercie macula costati, 
oblonga, fusca versus apicem. Costa albo punctata. Posticae albo layalina3 immacu- 
latse. Tibiae fuscaj. Larva gregaria, glabra, fusco grisescens; vitta dorsali, lata, 
fusca, qufB linea flava, maculis albis intersecta, includitur. (The next species is N. 
Brassicaria from South America, stated to be ''nimis praecedentibus affinis.") — J. C. 
Fabricius, Entomologica Systematica, vol. iii, part 2 ; Hafniae 1794, pp. 96-97. 



HISTORY OF RAVAGES, 1705-1800. 19 

From this description, incomplete and inaccurate as it is, our cotton- 
worm can be recognized ; and tliis, taken in connection witli Huebuer's 
descri])tion of Aletia as from Brazil, and with Mr. Grote's testimony 
upon this point, renders the identity of the destructive ^STorthern and 
Southern insects highlj' probable, to say the least. 

And now to our account of the ravages of the chenille. 

T*he early exi)lorers of the AVest Indies found cotton growing wild, 
and the first settlers began its cultivation. We learn from an old ac- 
count* that early in the last century the cotton -cultivators were accus- 
tomed to the injuries of a worm which appeared in great numbers. In 
Guiana the chenille was certainly" known by the earliest cultivators of 
cotton in that country (1705 to 1752). In the Bahamas the caterpillar 
was also destructive from the first cultivation of cotton. 1788, however, 
so ftir exceeded all previous years, that we always find it particularly al- 
luded to. In this year, between March and September, no less that 280 
tons of cotton, at a moderate estimate, were devoured by this worm.t 

In 1794 the worms were again very abundant and the crop on several 
of the islands suffered severely. On Acklin's Island two-thirds of the 
crop was lost, and this was also the approximate loss on this island in 
17S8.| In 1801, the cotton-crop having failed for a number of years, a 
committee of the members of the general assembly of the Bahamas was 
appointed to draw \\.\) a series of questions inquiring into the causes of 
this failure, and to forward them to the most intelligent planters on the 
islands. Mr. McKinnon says, concerning the result of the investigation : 
"Amongst the causes assigned for the severe and general disappoint- 
ment, the most prominent is the destruction committed by those most 
baneful insects, the red bug and the chenille." § 

In 1801 and 1802 there was an emigration of French cotton-planters 
from Martinique to Southwest Georgia on account of the ravages of the 
caterpillar in the West Indies, || and on many islands the cultivation of 
cotton was entirely stopped. 

The first recorded appearance of the cotton worm in the United States 
was, as we have already stated, in 1793. In that year it swept the cot- 
ton fields of Georgia and South Carolina, doing a great deal of damage, 
more particularly in Georgia. "In that year," says Mr. Spalding, "the 
destruction was complete. From Major Butler?s field of 400 acres only 
18 bags were made." ^ In 1800 there was another general appearance of 
the worms, and in that year the crops in South Carolina suffered equally 
with those in Georgia. Dr. Phares and Dr. Capers state that this was 
the first appearance of the worm in South Carolina, but we have the 

* Winterbotliam's European Settlemeuts iu West Indies, 1795 ? 

tHist. Civil and Commercial of tlie West Indies. Bryan Edwards, Pliila. 1805. 
Ill, 96. 
X McKinnon's Tour through the West Indies, 1802-1803. 
§ Ibid. 

II See Appendix I, report of A. R. Grote. 
*\ Seabrook's Memoir, p. 42. 



20 REPORT UPON COTTON INSECTS. 

testimony of Mr. J. W. Grace and the evidence of a strong jDrobability 
as to its occurrence tliere in 1793. 

We find no evidence of its reappearance again until 1804, altliough it 
must liave been seen in small numbers. 1801 was tlie first of the series 
of three great caterpillar years (1825 and 1816 being the other two), 
which gave rise to the almost universal theory that the greatest ravages 
of the chenille were to be expected every twenty-one years. In this year 
it swept over every portion of the cotton belt, which at that time com- 
prised a fair part of South Carolina, the coast and southernmost coun- 
ties of Georgia, the country for some distance back of Mobile Bay in 
Alabama, and counties of Mississippi and Louisiana along the great 
river. Concerning this year Dr. Phares has the following in his lecture 
before the Woodville Farmers' Club, May 4, 1869 : 

In 1804 the cotton-worm made one of its widest and most devastating invasions. It 
■was, I believe, on this occasion that Father St. Pierre was most earnestly entreated by 
his simple-minded parishioners of Louisiana to furnish holy water with which to 
repel "les chenilles." In districts further north, where they came later, they were 
finally exterminated by a snow storm. 

Between 1804 and 1825 there were no general incursions. The cater- 
pillar appeared many times, but in limited districts. Perhaps the sever- 
est of these limited appearances was in 1814 in portions of Louisiana. 
Mr. Winfree says:* "In 1814 or thereabouts they ate the cotton down 
to the ground in Iberville Parish in June." Br. Phares remarks: "In 
1814 perhaps it was they came in June in portions of Louisiana, the 
plant being very backward in consequence of a very cold late spring, 
they ate it down to the ground so that not a lock of lint was matured 
nor a seed saved." 

A good idea of the destruction in 1825, the second of the general in- 
vasions, is again to be gained from Dr. Phares' paper. He says : 

In 1825, the destruction was general in extent, embracing all the cotton States; the 
late Mr. Affleck in one of his paj)ers asserting that the destruction was "univei'saland 
complete." I must here be permitted to say that it was not "complete," as I most dis- 
tinctly remember and know I saw fields in which many bolls were fully matured and 
gathered before the chenilles injured the plant, and considerable quantities of very 
superior cotton were made. This was the first year that I saw the chenilles, and cii- 
cumstances so impressed me that my recollections of their appearance are more vivid 
than of any time since. 

The insect was again destroyed by a storm, as we have seen happen less extensively 
several times since; the wind and rain beating them down, and the water sweeping 
them along and foruiing immense heaps in some places. 

Mr. Affleck's phrase "universal and complete" was certainly used with 
justice so far as a great part of the cotton belt was concerned in 1825. 
An old correspondent in Conecuh County, Alabama, j)laces the loss this 
year at 90 per cent., while Mr. Fuller, of Edisto Island, South Carolina, 
states that old planters informed him that the entire crop was lost. On 
the other hand, Dr. Capers dismisses this year with the remark, " In 
1825 they were spreading, but perished again by a storm." 
* De Bow's Review, 1847, vol. iv, p. 251. 



HI&TOEY OF EAVAGES, 1826-1835. 21 

Dr. Callers* says conceruiiig the siicceediug year : 

In 1826 they destroyed the crops. The first notice of them this year was at Saint 
Helena, La., on the 1st of August. Soon after they were found on all the coast, from 
New Orleans to North Carolina. On August 23 they had destroyed almost all the cot- 
ton leaves, but suddenly they left the plants, though not for the purpose of webbing 
u}), as many were young. 

The cause of their sudden disappearance is said to have been that they were too 
much exposed to the powerful effects of the sun, in consecjuence of the plants being 
nearly destitute of foliage, and not protecting them from its direct rays. 

It is quite possible that Dr. Capers has made a mistake of a year, and 
that this note really should refer to the year 1825, as a diligent search- 
ing of records shows no other account of the prevalence of the cater- 
pillar in 1826. This is the most natural conclusion to arrive at, though 
it maj^ simply be a case of exaggeration. 

We have notes of the appearance of the worm, without, however, much 
damage resulting, in limited localities in 1828, 1829, 1833, 1834, andl83G. 
Considerable damage was done in Leon County, Florida, and the sur- 
rounding counties in 1830 ; in Southern Alabama in 1831, and again in 
Northern Florida in 1832. In 1834 the worms appeared in Texas for 
the first time. Mr. G. S. Clark, of Hempstead, Waller County, writes : 
"In 1834 a boat load of cotton seed w^as brought from Xew Orleans, and 
that year the worms made their first appearance and destroyed the crop." 
In 1836 they are stated to have been very destructive in Greene County, 
Alabama. According to Mr. Grote, Hon. Eobert Toombs sold his plan- 
tation in Southwest Georgia on account of the ravages committed by 
the cotton- worm in Early and Clay Counties in 1835. 

In 1838, the injuries were more general. Dr. Phares says : " They 
spread over a large portion of the cotton States that year, doing much 
damage in September and October. " Colonel Whitner, speaking for 
Leon County, Florida, says : " The caterpillar appeared early in August. 
The second brood stripped the plants by the 20th of September, and 
were so numerous that, after devouring the entire foliage, they barked 
the limbs and stalks and ate out bolls nearly grown. " The year 1839 
was noted neither for extended ravages nor for marked devastations in 
particular localities. 

In 1840, the appearance of the caterpillar was very general, extending 
north into Arkansas and South Caroliua. In most cases they were too 
late to do severe damage, and the only locality which suffered much, 
appears to have been IsTorthern Florida. Concerning the caterpiDars 
this year in Leon County, Florida, Dr. Capers says : " They came out 
from the 15th to the 20th of July,- and by the 6tli of September the 
plants were stripped of leaves and young bolls, so that the entire crop 
was less than one-half the average of other years. " It is a noticeable 
fact, upon viewing the past ravages of the caterpillar, that this north- 
western tier of Florida counties has never been exempt since 1830 and 
*Dep. of Agr. Ann. Eept. 1855, pp. 74,75. 



22 REPORT UPON COTTON INSECTS. 

that it lias suffered more in proi^ortiou to its size aud the amount of cot- 
ton grown than any other section of the country. 

The caterpillars were not at all widespread nor were their ravages re- 
markably severe in 1841, '12, '13, '11, '15. There was about 20 per cent, 
loss in Madison and Leon Counties, Florida, in 1811 ; elsewhere the 
worms came too late to do much damage except by depreciating the 
quality of the cotton by soiling it with their excrement. Great damage 
was reported from this source in West Feliciana Parish, Louisiana. In 
1812, although the worms were reported from parts of Texas, Alabama, 
Florida, and Georgia, but little injury seems to have been done. The 
same can be said for 1813, except that in this year the caterpillars were 
reported fi-om South Carolina, and that the combined damages from 
caterpillars and storms is reported at 33 per cent, from Leon County, 
Florida. In 1811, they appeared early in Floritla (being found webbed 
July 13, in Leon County) and along the coast in Matagorda and Brazoria 
Counties, Texas. The marked feature of the year 1811 was the abun- 
dance of the caterpillars in certain parishes in Louisiana. East and West 
Feliciana, East Baton Eouge, Saint Mary's, Saint Landry, Avoyelles, 
Kapides, Concordia, E.6d Eiver, Jackson, Madison, and Catahoula all 
lost more or less of the crop. A few short newspaper paragraphs may 
not come amiss in showing the situation. 

The Saint 'Landry Whig, of August, 1811, says : 

We are truly sorry to aimouncc that the cotton croj) in tliis parish is lamentably 
cut up. The caterpillar is making sad havoc. We learn that many of the planters 
on Bayou Ho'uf contemplate abandoning cotton altogether and intend i)lantiiig sugar- 
cane. The cotton crop this year in most of that section will not yield half the usual 
•luantity, and all around ns a third at least Avill be lost. Wo are. no alarmists, but 
speak the words of soberness aud of truth, aud people at distance may rely on this 
statement. 

The Eed Eiver Eepublican, of similar date, has the following : 

In our last we mentioned the appearance of the dreaded caterpillar on our cotton 
fields. We have since received information from the country that puts to rest all 
doubts. The real insect, so destructive in other years, can be seen on almost every 
plantation in the parish. Every effort to arrest the progress of the destroyers has 
been in vain. They approach the tender j)lant in myriads and the work of destruc- 
tion is completed in a short time. 

The Baton Eouge Advertiser of September 11, 1814, says : 
The caterpillar is doing immense destruction on the cotton plantations in this par- 
ish. Wherever the crop is late, the bolls being tender and new "forms" constantly 
emerging, the yield will be more than one-half less than the anticipated crop. This is 
the opinion of a highly respectable planter with whom we have had conversation on 
the subject. 

In the Concordia Intelligencer of like date we find the following : 
The army-worm. — This destructive insect to the hopes of the planter has just made 
its appearance in terrible quantities throughout the State. A gentleman just from the 
Opelousas counties informs us that the caterpillar has made its appearance in that 
region three weeks since. Within the past six days it has passed over the broad fields 
of Concordia, leaving them as if a whitening frost had blighted them. One-third o^ 



HISTORY OF EAVAGES, 1645. ^ 23 

the crop at least in tliis region lias been destroyed, how much more time will deter- 
mine. With the overflow and now the army-worm, the planter has but a slender 
prospect of being remunerated for his labor. 

The Alexandria Eepublican for August 31, 1844, has the following : 
A visit to Bayou Reef has given ns ocular proof of the fearful ravages of the dreaded 
caterpillar. The work of destruction has been complete. Scarcely a green leaf is to be 
seen in any direction — the plantations resembling rye-fields. In the opinion of the 
best informed, the yield in the parish will not be more than one-third of the average 
crop. Bad news, but true. 

In other cotton States the destruction was not to he compared to this, 
in spite of the newspaper exaggeration which marks it. In Mississippi 
the damage was slight. In Alabama, certain localities report consider- 
able injury. In Monroe County the worms were " bad in sections." In 
Clarke County they were very destructive. In Greene County the loss 
amounted to 33 per cent. In Georgia and Florida the loss was very 
slight. 

In 1845, the damage was greater than it had been since 1838. A 
curious instance is mentioned of this year by Mr. E. Richards,* of Cedar 
Key, Fla., showing the migratory power of the moth : 

The last of July, 1845, these caterpillars made their apiiearance in a small field of 
three or four acres of sea-island cotton, planted on Way Key, as an experiment to see 
if cotton could be advantageously cultivated on the Keys, no other cotton having 
been previously planted within 80 miles of them; but the whole crop was devoured. 
The caterpillar was at the same time destroying the cotton in the interior of the 
country. 

Mr. Glover remarked concerning this statement — 

It would seem to prove that it (the cotton-moth) is migratory in its habits, as there 
is no other way of accounting for its sudden presence, .except that, having previously 
existed on some other plant or weed, it had left it for food more congenial to its taste, 
although it has been asserted that the real cateri^illar will eat nothing but cotton. 

This being the year preceding the great cotton-worm year of 1846, it 
is worth our while to look at it more carefully than at others. It is at 
the head of an ascending scale of years, beginning with 1839. Eacli year, 
from 1839 to 1845, the destructions were gradually increased. As more 
moths hibernated, the more caterpillars there were the ensuing year. 
Throwing parasitic and climatic checks aside, the tendency would be 
for the worms to increase in geometrical proportion. As the caterpillar 
increased, however, so, naturally, will the parasites ; and when once, 
through meteorological reasons, the cotton-worms receive a decided 
check, the parasites will be in a position to reduce their numbers to a 
marked degree. This being the case, we would expect to see, in a suc- 
cession of favorable years, a gradual increase in the ravages of the 
caterpillars, until, after a year of great injury, there is a sudden falling 
oft" — a drop, as it were — to the bottom of another ascending scale of 
j'ears. This succession will, of course, be modified by many circum- 
stances, but the tendency will always be the same. 

The year 1846 was the third of the twenty-one-year irruptions, and 

* Dept. of Agr., Eept. 1855, p. 74. 



24 REPORT UPON COTTON INSECTS. 

was one of the worst years we have ever had. The caterpillars ap- 
peared very early in Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Florida, earlier 
than they had ever before been observed. In Texas, they made great 
havoc in the coast counties, but the inland counties did not suffer so 
much. Walker, however, and some of the surrounding counties, lost 
from 50 to 60 per cent, of the croj). In Louisiana and Mississippi, ac- 
cording to Dr. Harris,* the caterpillars destroyed, on the average, one- 
third of the entire crop. The state of things in Mississippi was well 
described by Mr. Affleck, writing, September 9, 1846, to the American 
Agriculturist. Mr. Affleck says : 

The caterpillar, cotton-worm, cotton-moth (Xoctiia xyUna), or chenille of the French 
West Indies, Gniana, &c., has utterly blighted the hopes of the cotton-planter for the 
present year, and produced most anxious fears for the future. I have heard from the 
greater part of the cotton-growing region — the news is all alike — the worm has de- 
stroyed the crop. I have no idea that any considerable portion of any State will 
escajje. « » » The present year the crop is unusually backward, at least four 
weeks later than usual. We have but just commenced picking; usually beginning 
about the last week in July or the first week in August. At this moment every field 
withiu this region of country, say south of Vicksburg, is stripped of everything but 
the stems, the larger branches, and a few of the iirst bolls, already too hard for the 
the worms' power of mastication. The full-growu bolls not yet become hard arc com- 
pletely eaten out, a circumstance I have never hoard of but once before, in 1825. The 
fields present a most melancholy appearance ; looking from the bluif at Natches across 
the river to those fine plantations back of Vidalia, nothing is to be seen but the brown 
Viitherod skeleton of the plant. 

Tbe devastation in Alabama equalled, if indeed it did not exceed, that 
in the States just mentioned. From nearly every part of the State it 
is rei^orted to have been one of the very worst years. Onr correspond- 
ent in Barbour County states that, when the leaf supply failed, the cat- 
erpillars fairly ate the bark off the plant, a thing which has not been 
done since. The old inhabitants even now gauge all destructive years 
by the standard of 1846. 

In Northern Florida the damage was even greater than usual. I quote 
from Colonel Whitner : 

It was found webbed up on the 7th of .July. The second brood began to web up on 
the 26th of that month, and, by the 20th, the parts of the field in which the worm 
was first seen were found to be eaten out, and the fly, the worms large and small, anil 
the chrysalides were discovered at the same time, a state of things never before ob- 
served. By the 5th of September the damage amounted to a loss of more than one- 
half of the crop. 

It will be seen from this that only nineteen days elapsed betAveen the 
spinning up of two successive broods, which is certainly indicative of a 
very quick development. The confusion of broods of which Colonel 
Whitner speaks has always been noticeable in j^ears when the cateri^il- 
lars have been at all abundant since that time. As the season advances 
the confusion becomes more marked until we have them as eggs, cater- 
pillars, chrysalides, and moths at one and the same time. 
* Entomological Correspondence, p. 169. 



HISTORY OF RAVAGES, 1846. 25 

In Georgia tlie ravages were as great as elsewhere, the counties along 
tlie coast and those of the southern tier suffering the most. 

South Carolina was severely afflicted. Mr. Fuller, of Edisto Island, 
Colleton County, writes as follows : * 

lu 1846, tliey appeared on the 20th of July (a very unusually early date), and by 
the 10th of September I suppovse there was scarcely a cotton leaf or any tender por- 
tion of the plants remaining, and the worms not fully grown, deserted the ravaged fiehls 
in millions in search of food, failing to find which, they died from starvation. The 
crop in this island was about 40 per cent, of an average one. 

Other parts of South Carolina report total loss, but reports of this 
kind are always to be taken with some degree of allowance. No cater- 
pillars were reported north of the State, nor were any reported from 
Arkansas. 

So severe a year as this would naturally arouse the planters, as indeed 
it did arouse them, to the necessity of knowing more about the habits of 
these destructive insects, and of discovering some appropriate remedy 
for their ravages. Up to this time very little had been written about 
the chenille. Thomas Say had described the moth scientifically in 1827, 
but had no opportunities for studying its habits. Dr. C. W. Capers, Hon. 
W. E. Seabrook, Mr. Thomas Affleck, and one or two other intelligent men 
had given the insect some attention, and had published more or less 
about it; but all of their accounts were somewhat fallacious, and even 
had thej been perfect, they were too few and far between to have done 
much good.t 

*Dept. of Agr., Ann. Rept., 1856, p. 76. 

tMr. Seabrook gives the following interesting account of how an enterprising South 
Carolina farmer saved his crop in 1843 : 

"The caterpillar appeared in several parts of the field of John Townsend, of Saint 
John's, Colleton, early in August last. The plants were luxuriant in growth and 
tender in weed and leaf, and the weather, being warm and rather moist, was altogether 
propitious to the spread and multiplying of the worms. By the adoption of prompt and 
vigorous measures, some of which are new, and a rigid perseverance in their execution, 
his crop escaped unscathed, while many of his fellow-laborers who lacked faith in any 
remedy suffered greatly. In the attainment of his purpose the means resorted to by 
Mr. Townsend were the following : 

"1. His people searched for and killed both the Avorm and the chrysalis of the first 
brood. 

"2. On the appearance of the second brood he scattered corn over the field to invite 
the notice of the birds, and while they de^H-edated on the worms. on the top of the 
stalks and their upi)er limbs, the turkeys destroyed the enemy on the lower branches. 

"3. When in the aurelia (chrysalis) state the negroes crushed them between their 
fingers. 

"4. Some patches of cotton where the caterpillars were very thick and the birds 
and turkej^s could not get access to them were destroyed. 

"5. The tops of the plants and the ends of all the tender and luxuriant branches, 
where the eggs of the butterfly are usually deposited, were cut ott'. 

"By these means, resolutely pursued, although at one time the jirospect of check- 
ing the depredators was most cheerless, not the slightest injury to the field was sus- 
tained. The exjjeriment cost Mr. Townsend 21 acres of cotton, about 15 bushels of 



26 REPORT UPON COTTON INSECTS. 

The ISIG invasion called forth a great many newspaper articles, which 
failed, unfortunately, to advance the sum-total of our knowledge to any 
great extent. Specimens were sent this year to Harris, but he was un- 
able to do more than mere classificatory work upon them. In the fall 
of 184G, Mr. Affleck, in the letter already quoted from,* gave the first 
hint at the migration theory which has recently occupied so i^rominent 
a place in all researches on the cotton-worm. Early in 1847 Dr. Gor- 
ham,t having arrived independently at the conclusion that we have an 
influx of the moths every year from more southern countries, published 
a pai)er upon the subject. In this paper he gives the first notice of a 
parasite upon the chenille, and draws up a description of what is un- 
doubtedly Pimpla conqulsUor. Mr. Affleck observed this parasite two 
or three years later, and figured it in 1851. | Dr. Gorham's article excited 
a real interest. It was reprinted in several prominent Southern journals, 
and was answered by several writers. Ko one seemed, however, to agree 
with his views on migration until the theory was again independently 
Ijroposed by Dr. W. I. Barnett in 1851.§ Among all these discursive 
writings there was, however, so much of a fallacious nature that the 
good which they accomplished was reduced to the minimum. 

The prevalence of parasites towards the close of this year (1840) is a 
point worthy of note. Dr. Gorham came to the conclusion that not one 
of the last brood of caterpillars escaped parisitism, and to account for 
their ai)pearance the ensuing year was obliged to originate his migra- 
tion theory. 

In spite of this wonderful abundance of parasites, however, the worms 
were on hand bright and early in the summer of 1847. Their first ap- 
pearance was simultaneous in Northern Florida and Southern Louisiana. 
They appeared early over a large ])art of the cotton belt, and were found 
in great numbers as far north as Southeru Arkansas ; 1847 was, how- 
ever, in nearly every cotton State, an unfavorable year for cotton, on 
account of drought with an occasional heavy storm. The same causes 
which affected the cotton had their effect also upon the caterpillar, and 
its insect enemies were enabled to get the ujiper baud. The result was, 
that, instead of the year being more severe than 184G, as it at first bid 
fair to be, it was a marked one in but few localities. In Florida, where 
the worms were first seen in early July, the damage was so slight as to 
cause a return of " no injury. ^^ The principal ravages occurred in North- 
ern Louisiana and Southern Arkansas. Carroll Parish, Louisiana, reports 
them as " very bad," and Miller County, Arkansas, reports a loss of two- 
corn, aud the work of all his people for about five days. This geutlemau was aroused 
to unusual action by the rellectiou, founded on analogical reasoning, that, of one moth 
of feeble wing and tender body, which a vigilant eye might discover and destroy, the 
progeny in six weeks amounted to at least twenty millions of worms." (Figures too 
high.) 

* American Agriculturist, vol. v, p. 342. 

tDe Bow's Review, III, pp. 535-543. 

t Southern Rural Almanac, 1851, p. 50. 

§ Proc. Bost. Soc. Nat. Hist., 18 '4, vol. iv, pp. 316-319. 



HISTOEY OF RAVAGES, 1818-1862. 27 

thirds of the crop. Local injury seems to have been done in Montgom- 
ery County, Alabama, and in Cofiee County, Georgia, to a considerable 
extent. 

From 1848 to 1800, inclusive, there was not a single notable worm 
year. The caterpillars were every year more or less injurious iu limited 
districts, but not a single general invasion took x^lace. The increase in 
their numbers Avas comparatively slight, and frequent unfavorable years 
kept them well subdued. In addition to this, the planters had worked 
into a clean and thorough system of cultivation ; there was no waste and 
no rubbish, and such a method has always jiroved the best way to keep 
all insect pests in check. 

The year 1818 seems to have been even much more unfavorable for the 
caterpillars than was 1817. We have them reported simply from the 
northwestern part of Florida and from the canebrake region of Alabama. 

In 1811), they were found over a wider extent of country. Eastern 
Texas, Central Ala,bama, l*^orthern Florida, Southern Georgia, and the 
southern coast of Soutli Carolina reported their i^resence with little or 
no damage. Leon County, Florida, is the only locality in which severe 
damage was done. 

In 1850 no great injury was done. The worms appeared in parts of 
Texas, Alabama, Florida, South Carolina, and for the first time in Ten- 
nessee. 

In 1851 they were found in the canebrake region and iu Northern- 
Florida. The correspondent from Gadsden County reports " clean de 
vouring " for this year. 

In 1852 they were more wide-spread again and heavy local losses 
were reported from Greene County, Alabama, and Leon County, Florida. 
Other localities reported no material damage. On the South Carolina 
coast they appeared rather earlier than usual, but little harm was ac- 
complished. 

In 1853 they again ajjpeared in Arkansas, and some localities in Mis- 
sissippi were more than usually afflicted. 

In 1851 they were numerous in the canebrake region ; 1855 was a dry 
year, and, according to Dr. Phares, the caterpillars were destroyed by 
drought and heat ; 1856 was a year of remarkable exemption ; 1857, 
1858, and 1859 are unworthy of remark as caterpillar years ; in 1860 they 
were more abundant in the canebrake and in parts of Texas and Mis- 
sissippi than they had been for the few i^receding years. 

From 1861 to 1865, inclusive, the cotton crop was necessarily greatly 
curtailed, and the reports of the activity of the caterpillar during that 
period could hardly be expected to be of sufficient accuracy or com- 
pleteness to assist in studying the periodical appearances. Still the re- 
ports have been comparatively full, and show that the caterpillars were 
present over all the more southern portions of the cotton belt and were 
increasing in numbers ev^ery year. In 1861 and 1862, although they 
were widespread, their ravages were reported as slight from every 



28 EEPOET UPON COTTON INSECTS. 

locality. In 1863 they did considerable damage in Austin County and 
tlie surrounding country in Texas. In the latter part of this season 
they were found as far north as Wayne and Halifax Counties in Kortk . 
Carolina, although the harm that they did was very slight. In 1884 
they were reported as destructive in Jefferson Parish, Louisiana, and in 
Jefferson County, Mississippi. They reached North Carolina again this 
year, and were reported from Edgecombe County. Eighteen hundred 
and sixty-five was a marked year in parts of Texas, in Southern Arkan- 
sas, and all through Central Alabama. The worms were again seen in 
Edgecombe County and Halifax County, North Carolina. 

From 1866 to 1877 we are enabled to chronicle the appearances of the 
caterpillars with much more certainty than in pre\aous years. During 
this time the Department of Agriculture publislied regular monthly re- 
ports, giving, among other things, the condition of the different crops' 
as sent in by regular correspondents all over the country. Information 
given at the time of the ravages is, of course, more reliable than that 
called up from the memory after a term of years. Moreover, the answers 
to the 1878 circular will naturally be more accurate concerning the more 
recent years. From 1866 to date, the caterpillars have been widespread 
every year. In some years the ravages have been more severe and gen- 
eral than in others ; but few localities in any of the more southern p(U'- 
tions of the belt can boast exemption during any one year. Both the 
caterpillars and the boll-worm have been infinitely more injurious than 
in the time before the war. This is thought, as before stated, to proceed 
almost entirely from the general looseness and carelessness of the pres- 
ent system of cultivation. Of course there are many exceptions, but as 
long as the careless are in the majority the innocent must suffer with the 
guilty. 

In the spring of 1866 there was a large planting, and many hopes were 
entertained for the success of the crop. A full crop was needed. The 
war had impoverished the South, and cotton had risen greatly in value. 
The hoj)es, however, of many were destined not to be fulfilled. The 
caterpillars made their appearance in immense numbers in most of the 
States, and in many localities destroyed the whole crop. Louisiania 
lost one-half of her whole crop. Texas lost 40 ]>er cent. ; Alabama lost 
42 per cent. ; and Mississippi lost 30 per cent. These figures are simply 
general averages, for while in one county everything would be devoured, 
in another the loss would be small. Texas suffered severely all through 
her cotton-growiug region. Goliad County reported almost total loss- 
In Austin County the cotton was damaged worse than it ever had been 
before. In Polk County they " devoured everything." In Lamar County 
(the northernmost county of the State) they made their first and last 
appearance. They never had been seen there before ; they never have 
been seen there since. In Tensas Parish, Louisiana, the "entire crop of 
the county was strij)ped." They were very destructive in South Arkan- 
sas, and across the 3'iver in the richest cotton counties of Mississippi. 



HISTORY OF RAVAGES, 1867. 29 

In Alabama tliey were first observed in Lowndes Connty. They came 
in force by the middle of Angust, and, mnch of the crop being yonng 
from replanting, the damage was very great. In Montgomery Connty 
they were not found until September 1. In Greene County the crop was 
nearly ruined, and adjoining counties suffered severely. Florida escaped 
this year without severe injury, and Georgia was almost unscathed. 
The caterpillars were reported as far north as "Wayne, Edgecombe, and 
Franklin Counties, in North Carolina, but their numbers were few, aiul 
they came late in the season. The damage was consequently insignifi- 
cant. 

As we have before stated, the fact that the years 1804, 1825, and 1846 
had been remarkable caterpillar years had given rise to the theory, cred- 
ited by nearly every one, that the greatest ravages of the chenilles were 
to be expected at intervals of twenty-one years, and, as a result, many 
had been dreading the coming of 18G7 as the fourth of these terrible 
years. It proved, however, to be but little worse than 1800 as a year of 
general destruction, ahd it certainly was not as bad as the following 
year, 1868. In Texas, it is true, it was, perhaps, as destructive a year 
as has been experieuced, but in Louisiana it was no worse, and in other 
States not so bad as the previous year. The Crops in Texas suffered 
greatly. In Colorado and Fayette Counties the ravages were the worst 
ever experienced. As far west as Comal County the worms. appeared 
in tremendous numbers. In Austin County they were even worse than 
in 1800, and four-fifths of the crop was destroyed. ]S"ortheast, in Polk, 
Walker, Trinity, and Cherokee, the same state of affairs was to be seen. 
Polk reports total loss. Our correspondent from Walker County says: 
" They swept the fields like a besom of destruction," and in Cherokee 
great damage was done. Although it has been an unnsual thing for the 
northern tier of Texas counties to suffer, Eed Eiver County this time 
reported almost a complete failure. In Louisiana they were more or less 
destructive over the whole State, East and West Feliciana and Jackson 
Pai'ishes suffering perhaps the most. The crops of counties along the 
river in Arkansas and Mississippi were partially destroyed, the interior 
counties of the latter State suffering comparatively little. Their first 
appearance was in June in Pike County, and before the season was 
over this county had suffered severely. In Wilkinson they were very 
destructive, as also in Covington, and later in the season as far north as 
De Soto. In Alabama the losses were comparatively slight. Greene 
. County lost one -fifth of the crop, and Pickens perhaps more, but in other 
parts no great injury was reported. Florida was also comparatively 
exempt. There were few reports of losses from Georgia, Charleston 
County sending in the only heavy loss — 5 per cent. In South and North 
Carolina the caterpillars were abundant toward the end of the season, 
but their injuries were slight in the latter State, and not great in the 
former. 

The believers in the twenty-one-year theory breathed more freely at 



30 REPORT UPON COTTON INSECTS. 

the close of this season ; but their feelings of relief iivere premature, as 
18G8 proved to be one of the worst years yet on record. The ravages 
ju Texas and Louisiana were, perhaps, on the whole, not equal to those 
of 1867, but the other States suffered greatly. In Alabama and Georgia 
the injuries have only been equalled by those of 1873. The first noted 
appearance of the caterpilkxrs in 1868 was in Austin County, Texas, in 
the latter part of May. This was the earliest aijpearance up to this time 
on record, and grave fears were at once expressed of the failure of the 
crop. These fears were abundantly fulfilled so Tat as Austin County 
was concerned, for the crop was nearly destroyed as early as July by 
the third brood proper. In Fort Bend County they were very numerous 
by July 20, but not nearly as destructive as in Austin. They were again 
present in great numbers in Comal County. Hardin reported the unusual 
loss of one-half, and in Polk County the croj) was partially destroyed. 
Further north, in Upshur, the loss was not serious; in Titus they made 
no apiiearance till August 30, when it was too late to do much damage. 
In Grayson County the crop was injured to some extent, and Fannin 
reported a loss of 25 i^er cent. Louisiana as a general thing reported 
" not so bad as 18G7," and ^Vrkansas likewise. In Mississippi the losses 
were considerable, in some localities more and in others less than in the 
preceding years. Wilkinson County was badly afflicted, while in the 
neighboring county of Pike the worms were not as bad as in 18G7. In 
Hinds the damage from insects was great, but our correspondent states 
that Aletia ravages were inferior to those of the boll-worm. Attala 
County lost one-half, and Washington three-tenths, which are perhaps 
but little above the average for that part of the State. The northern 
part did not suffer very greatly, and our corresjiondent from Panola 
states that in his county the injuries were less than in anj^ other part of 
the State. In Alabama the loss was great. Strange to say, the more 
northern regions suffered more than did the southern and central coun- 
ties. There were a few exceptions to this, for in Conecuh nearlj* one-half 
was lost, in Crenshaw one- fourth, in Barbour one-fifth, and in Montgomery 
three-tenths. Lowndes, Wilcox, Dallas, Autauga, Perry, Hale, Sum- 
ter, Pickens, and Lee escaped without great injury, while in Clay, Saint 
Clair, Marshall, and Lawrence the losses amounted to one-half the crop, 
(i reat damage was done in I^ortheru Florida. The crops of Georgia, how- 
ever, suffered more than those of any other State. Decatur County lost 
from one-half to two-thirds, and in other southern counties the damage 
was great. The most unprecedented injury was done through the center 
of the State. Stewart, Chattahoochee, iVlarion, Macon, Taylor, Crawford, 
Emanuel, Baldwin, Troup, Heard, Butts, Columbia, Wilkes, Hall, all 
suffered severely. The damage in these counties will foot up nearly to 
one-half the crop, which is very remarkable for Central Georgia, where 
the injury is rarely excessive. In the more northern counties it was re- 
ported as coming too late to do much harm. In South Carolina the 
injury was greater than it had been before. ]N"ewberry district returned 



HISTORY OF RAVAGES, 18G9. 31 

a loss of one-third, a remarkable loss for tliis State. Considerable damage 
was also done in Abbeville and Spartausbnrg districts. In North Caro- 
lina the caterpillars appeared September 1, earlier than ever before. 
They ate many leaves, bnt little damage was accomplished. One of onr 
correspondents states that they came jnst at the right time to clear the 
leaves away from the ripening bolls. 

Thns we see that 18G8 is the cnlminating point of a long series of 
years in which the ravages of the caterpillars have been gradnally grow- 
ing more severe, and now, in 1869, comes the sndden fall ; 1869 proved 
to be a remarkably" dry year, and cotton snffered more from dronght 
than from any other cause. This at once brought Aletia under the power 
of its insect enemies, and when the statistician of this department glanced 
over the field in his monthlj^ report for December, 1869, he stated : " The 
caterpillar and boll-worm committed depredations in some sections, de- 
stroying here and there the crop of a county, but their ravages were by 
no means general." The points of injury this year were very scattered, 
and were due, for the most part, to local causes. Two of the counties 
in the southern part of the Texas cotton -growing region, Matagorda and 
Goliad, suffered very severely ; but farther north, the crops were by no 
means greatly injured. OW to the west, the caterjjillars made their ap- 
pearance in one field in Blanco County for the first time in its cotton- 
growing history. In Polk County the crop was partially destroyed, but 
in surrounding counties the damage was slight. In Louisiana the worms 
were to be found all over the State, but not a single parish reports any 
loss worthy of note. In Mississippi, also, the loss was comparatively 
insignificant. In Alabama more damage was done. A few counties, 
which reported small losses the year before, were more severely afflicted 
this year. In Wilcox the worms were very bad ; Macon reported great dam - 
age ; in Dallas 20 per cent, of the crop was lost, and in Greene 30 per 
cent. With these few exceptions, the injury was slight. From a com- 
paratively limited region in Northern Florida extremely varied accounts 
are given of the ravages this year. In Leon County the worms api)eared 
early, one-fourth of the crop was destroyed and much greater loss antici- 
pated, when they suddenly and unaccountably disappeared. Bradford 
County reported the damage as severe, and Putnam lost 50 per cent, of 
the crop. Santa Kosa, Jackson, and Duval, on the other hand, report 
the caterpillars as not very injurious. Southern Georgia and the coast 
counties of that State were badly invaded, while the remainder of the 
State reported slight injuries. In Brooks County the caterpillars did 
considerable damage ; Glynn lost three-tenths of the crop, and Liberty 
from one-third to one-half. The crop in South Carolina does not seem 
to have been at all damaged this year. In Wayne County, North Caro- 
lina, the third brood of caterpillars came in August, the earliest date on 
record for that State, and did some little damage. 

We should naturally expect an increase in the ravages of the worms 
again in 1870, but the same causes which reduced their numbers so 



32 EEPORT UPON COTTON INSECTS. 

greatly in 1869 again operated in 1870, tlie growing season being remark- 
able for long-continued drought. In the statistical summing up for 
the year, we find the following remark: "A general exemption from 
losses by insects is noted with occasional exceptions, mostly in Louisiana 
and Texas (the counties of Matagorda, Henderson, and Eed Eiver, in 
Texas, and Rutherford, in Tennessee, have been infested with boll- 
worms)." In Texas, Goliad and Matagorda Counties again report con- 
siderable injuries, and Galveston County lost one-half the crop. In 
Montgomery County they were seen webbing up before July 1. Polk 
County lost part of the crop, but elsewhere they were not bad. In Lou- 
isiana the worms were abundant and destructive in East Feliciana, 
Eapides, Avo^^elles, Tensas, and Jackson Parishes. In Rapides the crop 
was damaged 20 per cent, in August, and there were some injuries later. 
Avoyelles lost 50 per cent, of the crop from storms and caterpillars. 
Mississippi was almost entirely exemjjt from severe ravages by the 
worms. They were present, but in small numbers. Nearly all of the 
richest cotton counties of Alabama reported the presence of the cater- 
pillars in the early part of the year, but the final reports show an entire 
exemption from severe iiijuries. None of the correspondents in Florida 
and- Georgia consider 1870 worthy of note as a worm year, though many 
of them speak of the unusual freedom from insect pests. The caterpil. 
lars appeared in South Carolina, and were also reported from Cumber- 
land County, North Carolina, but no damage resulted. 

In 1871 there was a general increase in the ravages of the worms, the 
esi)ecial point of destruction being Louisiana. The caterpillars were 
present in force over all the Southern cotton States, but in all but 
Louisiana the last brood was just too late to destroy the crop. In Texas 
they were reported from all over the cotton-growing region, from Bexar 
to Eed River. The greatest damage was done in Bexar, Matagorda, 
Liberty, Rusk, and Cherokee, but in these counties it was nothing more 
than the top crop that was taken. Louisiana, as we have before said 
was the point of greatest injury this year. The loss was, however, very 
unequally and strangely distributed throughout the State. In Saint 
Landry there was general destruction. Iberia lost 45 per cent, of the 
crop. Washington lost one-third. Avoyelles reported total loss, and 
Caddo serious injury. On the other hand, although considerable injury 
was done in East and West Feliciana, Rapides, and Richland, the parishes 
of Tangipahoa, Tensas, Madison, Red River, Claiborne, Ouachita, and 
Morehouse report but few worms. In La Fayette County, Arkansas 
the caterpillars appeared rather late, but did some little damage. Mis. 
sissippi cotton suffered more from drought in 1871 than from any other 
cause. The caterpillar did considerable damage in Wilkinson and Jef- 
ferson Counties, but, although they were present all over the State, their 
injuries in other i^ortions were limited. In Alabama the worms were 
reported from many localities, but, as before, losses were not great. The 
northern part of the State was not touched. The only counties reporting 



HISTORY OF RAVAGES, 1-7-2. 33 

loss that is at all severe were the widely-separated oues of Crenshaw 
and Bibb, in each of which the loss amounted to one-half of the crop. 
The correspondent in Crenshaw reniarke<l upon the regular northeast 
(iourse Avhich the worms seemed to take. In Florida the correspondents 
forgot to say anything- about the caterpillars, in their dismay at the havoc 
created by the violent storms which visited that section of the country 
the latter i)art of the season. In Gadsden County alone does the cater- 
jnllar seem to have done much damage. In Georgia the caterjiOlar was 
an element not to be taken into account in summing up the damage this 
- year. Early in the season, drought, with rust, and later, violent storms 
completely overshadowed the insects. They were barely mentioned from 
some half dozen localities. Clay County alone reporting considerable 
damage from their ravages. They do not seem to have appeared this 
year in South and Xorth Carolina. 

In 1872 there was a great increase in the loss occasioned by the cater- 
pillar ravages. Texas did not suffer to any great extent, and the damage 
was no more severe than in the jirevious year in Louisiana. Mississippi 
lost considerably', but the greatest injury was done in Alabama and 
Florida. In Georgia the loss was much greater than usual, as it was 
also in South Carolina, and the caterpillars were very abundant in ^orth 
< Carolina. The presence of the worms early in June was rej)orted from 
Texas, Louisiana, and Florida. In Texas, JNIatagorda and Victoria were 
the first counties to report caterpillars ; in the latter county they were 
seen as early as June 6, and in the former about the same time. Some 
damage was done in these counties, as well as in De Witt, Gonzales, 
Austin, Waller, Libert^', Walker, Polk, Upshur, and Kaufman. In 
Fayette they were very troublesome, and in Liberty they were present 
in large numbers as early as July. The State as a whole did not, how- 
ever, suffer at all severely. In Louisiana the caterjjillars were reported 
in June and appeared in force in August. They nearly "finished" the 
crop in Tangipahoa, and reduced that of Marion to a half average. In 
Concordia many fields were entirely stripped of foliage. In Eapides 
two-thirds of the crop was destroyed, and the caterpillars were reported 
in injurious numbers in Saint Landry, Washington, Ked Eiv^er, and 
Jackson. Arkansas reported them this year from one locality alone, 
Columbia County. In Mississippi the ravages were general. Marion, 
Clarke, Rankin, Hinds, and Xoxubee Counties suffered the most, perhaps, 
the loss in all amounting to nearly one-half the crop. In other localities 
the losses varied fro)n almost nothing up to 25 i)er cent. 

The state of things this year in Alabama was well set forth in the 
September report of this department, as follows : 

Our August returns from Alaljama foreshadowed an extensive visitation of the cot- 
ton caterpillar, which, as our' September reports show, was fully and painfully realized. 
In some places the boll-worm vied with the cotton-worm in its destructive influence. 
Reports of either or both of these pests come from Macon, Pike, Marengo, Conecuh, 
Perry, Montgomery, Crenshaw, Russell, Fisk, Calhoun, Chambers, Butler, Autauga, 
Dallas, Wilcox, and Tuscaloosa Counties. In Crenshaw the fields were denuded of 

3 c I 



34 REPORT UPON COTTON INSECTS. 

foliage. In Calhoun the crop prospect was reduced 25 \)qv cent, in five days. lu 
Autauga the roads, woods, and wells were full of army and boll-worms. In Wilcox 
the caterpillars, after stripping the cotton plant of its leaves, attacked the bolls, eat- 
ing the smaller ones and killing the larger ones by gnawing around them. . In Perry 
the crop was cut down to half an average after August 20. In Conecuh the destruc- 
tion was almost complete, as it also was iu Russell. All through the cane-brake region 
the loss was very severe. Bivtler, Clark, Wilcox, Dallas, Perry, and Tuscaloosa report 
a loss of one-half; Pike, Bibb. Hale. Calhoun, and Limestone a lo.ss of oue-fourth or 
over. With the exception of 1873, this was, perhaps, as bad a worm year as Alabama 
ever had. In Florida also the damage was very great. In Suwannee County the 
latei^pillars appeared July 15, and within a month many fields were entirely stripped. 
In Leon they made their ai)pearance August 18, and within a Aveek the last cotton leaf 
had disappeared. 

The same report conie.s from Taylor County. Columbia County suf- 
fered a loss of 75 per cent, from rust aucl caterpillars combiued, Leon 
County lost two thirds of the crop; Orange, Jackson, Jeflterson, Suwan- 
nee lost one-half, and Clay one-third. The Madison County correspond- 
ent, on the other hand, reported "not nui(;h loss." The caterpillars 
were destructive in almostevery part of Georgia, although their ravages 
were far less than in the neighboring States of Alabama and Florida. 
Calhoun and Heard lost half the crop; Lee, Marion, and Columbia one- 
third; Decatur, Baldwin, and Coweta from one-fifth to one-third; Ber- 
rien, Worth, Clay, Dooly, Sumter, Schley, Chattahoochee, Muscogee, 
Upson, Wilkinson, Putnam, Glascock, Greene, Spalding, Floyd, and 
Chattooga, all were afflicted in a lesser degree. In South Carolina the 
caterpillars Mere very destructive in Bichland County. In Orangeburgh 
they appeared in great numbers, but were rather late. In Xorth Caro- 
lina they were widesi>read, and were reported from six of the cotton- 
growing counties of that State. So ends 1872, which we think can fairly 
be placed among the six great cotton-worm years, 1804, 1825, 184G, 18C8, 
1872, 1873. 

From the time of the first appearance of the chenille down to the 
present date, it is doubtful if 1873 was ever equaled as a year of general 
cateri)illar ravages. From Atascosa and Medina Counties in Texas, to 
Prince George and Princess Anne in Virginia, through every portion of 
the cotton-growing region, these pests were to be found in destructive 
numbers, and few localities escaped serious injiuy. As was to be ex- 
pected from their prevalence in 1872 the hibernation was extensive and 
caterpillars were reported remarkably early in the spring of 1873. They 
were seen on May 30 along the Flint River in Decatur County, Georgia. 
Just over the State line, in Jackson and Gadsden Counties, Florida, they 
were observed about the same time. They had also made their api)ear- 
ance in Marion County, Mississippi, and also in Barbour County, Ala- 
bama. 

Early in June they were reported from Atascosa County, Texas, as 
sweeping the third planting of cotton, the first two having already been 
destroyed by grasshoppers. They had also made their appearance in 
Victoria County, Texas. Before July 12 they had been reported from 



HISTORY OF RAVAGES, 1373. 35 

the following- localities: Atascosa, Austiu, aud Galveston Counties, 
Texas ; Tangipahoa, West Feliciana, Concoixlia, Eapides, and Carroll 
Parishes, Louisiana ; Wilkinson, Marion, and Jasper Counties, Missis- 
sippi; Clarke, Wilcox, Dallas, Tuscaloosa, Barbour, and Saint Clair 
Counties, Alabama ; Liberty, Leon, Jackson, Gadsden, Suwannee, and 
Columbia Counties, Florida ; and Decatur County, Georgia. These local- 
ities are of extreme interest and should be borne in mind as showing 
probable localities of hibernation. 

In Texas the distribution of the worms was much more general than 
it ever had been before, many counties reporting them for the first time. 
The points of heaviest damage seemed to be irregularly distributed 
throughout the cotton-growing part of the State. They seemed to fol- 
low no law, nor were they massed together as one would exi)ect. The 
greater or lesser destructiveness seems to depend so entirely upon various 
local causes that this result is brought about. The worms were more 
universally present in the southwest cotton counties than before, but few 
of them suffered severely, the exceptions being Medina, Brazoria, Fort 
Bend, and Lavaca. The following counties were the worst afflicted of 
any in the State: Burnet, Austin, Waller, Washington, Grimes, Hardin, 
^Nacogdoches, Shelby, Marion, Eusk, Henderson. The loss in these 
counties amounted to from 25 per cent, to 75 per cent, of the crop. The 
correspondent from Liberty says that total destruction was anticipated, 
but that the caterpillars unaccountably stopped short of the whole crop. 
A curious fact was noted by the correspondent from Smith County to 
the eftect that while the cotton on "red lands" was seriously damaged, 
that on " gray lands " was scarcely touched. 

In Louisiana the damage was very great. The more southern parts 
of the State were seriously injured by the earlier broods of the cater- 
pillars, while the more northern counties were, some of them, entirely 
untouched until late in September. Even as late as this the crop was 
in many instances almost entirely destroyed. In Iberia, Tangipahoa, 
West Feliciana, Avoyelles, Eapides, Tensas, Franklin, Caddo, Boissier, 
and Claiborne the worms did great damage, inflicting losses varying 
from one-third to nearly the whole crop. Madison, however, and one or 
two other more northern i)arishes, reported them as coming too late to 
do much harm. The caterpillars were this year more abundant in Ar- 
kansas than they ever had been before. Great damage was done in 
Hempstead County; the top crop was taken in Little Eiver, and con- 
siderable damage was done in Columbia, Union, Ashley, Drew, Dorsey, 
Clark, Polk, and Garland Counties. Mississippi was badly afflicted all 
ever the State. Appearing in Marion in May, they rapidly spread and 
increased with each successive brood. Some of the upper counties they 
did not reach until after the 1st of September. Loss amounting to 20 
per cent, of the crop and over was inflicted on the following counties : 
Wilkinson, Jefterson, Claiborne, Clark, Warren, Eankin, Madison, Wash- 
ington, Lowndes, Le Flore, Grenada, Lee, and several others. The cat- 



36 REPORT UPON COTTON INSECTS. 

erpillars made tlieir appearance this year in Tennessee in considerable 
numbers, but tlieir ravages were inferior to those of the boll-worm. 
Shelby County reported 50 per cent, loss from the combined ravages of 
the two insects. In Dickinson County the crops were also damaged by 
Aletia. In Alabama the caterpillars were this year reported from thirty- 
eight counties. Many who, up to this time, had considered the loss un- 
worthy of mention now sent in exaggerated reports of the ravages- 
Some, however, report them as not so destructive as in the previous year, 
which, it will be remembered, was one of the worst years Alabama ever 
experienced. The caterpillars made their first appearance along the 
Chattahoochee Kiver, in Barbour County, and in that county before the 
end of the season they had damaged the crop to the extent of one-half 
In Henry County, just south, they were not seen until much later, but 
then came in immense numbers and stripped the fields. In Coffee and 
other counties farther to the west only the late cotton suffered seriously 
Throughout the canebrake the damage was very great. Dallas County 
suflered a loss of more than one-half. Lowndes reported a loss of 70 
percent. Montgomery reported "weed late, and worms early; damage 
very great." Autauga lost from two-thirds to three-fourths of the crop. 
In Hale the cro]> Avas the poorest for tliirty-five years. Greene lost one- 
third. On the other hand Bullock County, surrounded by Barbour, 
Eussell, Pike, Macon, and Montgomery, in which the damage was so 
great, reported " not many worms." Of the more northern counties, 
Bibb reported one-third loss ; Cliaml)ers reported the top crop ruined and 
other damage; in Randolph, Talladega, and Calhoun they were very 
bad ; in Saint Clair and Jefferson they were also destructive. The cor- 
respondent from Blount County said : " Caterpillars took the leases, but 
this only hastened tlie ripening of the bolls ; best crop ever pro<luced 
liere." 

In Florida, in 1873, the principal damage was done, not as usual in 
the northwest but in tlie northeast. In Jackson, Liberty, Gadsden, and 
Leon, our old standby's for the caterpillars, they were present in force, 
but the loss they occasioned was so insignificant compared with that 
made by the September and October storms that they were lost sight of 
by the correspondents ; then, too, the storms destroyed the caterpillars 
even more effectually than the cotton. In Jefferson, Taylor, Madison, 
Suwannee, Hamilton, and Columbia Counties, however, the damage from 
caterpillars was enormous. The correspondent from Taylor County pa 
renthesizes, "the caterpillars have nearly stopped cotton culture in this 
county." 

One of the very worst affected States in 1873 was Georgia. The cat- 
erpillars were reported earliest from this State, and later in the season 
were to be found in almost every cotton field within her limits, from De- 
catur to Whitfield. The counties in which the most injury was done 
were as follows : Clinch, Sumter, Stewart, Taylor, Wilkinson. These 
counties lost one half or more. Calhoun, Lee, Worth, Dooly, ISIarion, 



HISTORY OF RAVAGES, 1873. 37 

Scbloy, Muscogee, Twiggs, Eichmond, McDiiffie, Heard, Coweta, Bald- 
win, Wilkes, Lincolu, JacksoQ, Carroll all report losses varyiug from 
25 to oO per cent. Even as far north as Floyd, Franklin, and Whitfield, 
the top crop was swept, and the sum total considerably shortened.. Many 
counties reported it the worst year ever experienced, the crop being 
nearly ruined. It is a curions fact that the coast counties did not sufler 
this year as greatly as did the counties in the interior, whereas usually 
the reverse is the case. 

In South Carolina the invasion was quite general. In manj^ districts 
which had simpl}^ known it as a late fall comer, it appeared early enough 
to do some little damage, but few seem to have suffered at all severely. 
In Lexington they were bad, and in Marion all cotton on improved lands 
was stripped. In Edgefield the growth of the i)lants was stopped by 
the leaf-eating of the caterpillars, but the bolls opened finely. This 
was also the case in Orangeburgh, but the quality of the cotton was 
injured by the excrement of the worms. They were reported, in addi- 
tion to these districts, from Williamsburgh, Richland, Fairfield, New- 
berr}', Laurens, Chesterfield, and Marlborough. 

In Xorth Carolina, the prevalence of the caterpillars was utterly beyond 
all precedent, and in some counties great damage was done. In Bladen, 
rust and caterpillars combined to make a loss of 50 per cent. In Carteret, 
they were worse than ever before ; late i:)lantings were cut down one- 
half. In Lenoir, the crop suffered a loss from caterpillars alone of 25 
per cent. In Stanley, they were observed in parts of the county where 
they were never known before, but were too late to do much damage. 
In Greene, the leaves were striiJi^ed. In Pitt, they api)eared for the first 
time and did considerable damage. The correspondent from Beaufort 
says; "The caterpillars saved the top crop from frost." In Chowan, 
the caterpillars made their first appearance, and in Perquimons they 
damaged the crop to the extent of 50 per cent. Currituck suffered a 
loss of one-third of the crop, and in Martin, where they appeared for 
the first time, the late crop was taken entire. Many other counties 
chronicled their appearance without further comment. 

In the latter part of September and the early part of October, the 
chenilles did the unheard of thing of appearing in the cotton fields of 
Virginia in sufficient numbers to do a little damage. The correspond- 
ent from Sussex County says : "A worm heretofore unknown stripped 
the leaves just before the cool nights of October." In Southami^ton, 
the leaves were also strii)ped. In Prince Greorge, all the cotton was late 
planted and was more or less injured by the caterpillars. In Princess 
Anne, their presence was also noted. 

The comparison between the damage done by the cotton-worm and 
that produced by other causes this year, is well treated in the Depart- 
ment of Agriculture Monthly Report for February, 1871, as follows : 

The causes of injury are various, tlie more prominent being the ravages of worms 
in stopping the development of tlie bolls and staining iiber ; the destruction of the 
plant or beating out the fiber, or reducing its grade with dirt and " trash," by heavy 



38 EEPOET UPON COTTON INSECTS. 

storms of rain or wind ; i>rematiue decay arising from imperfect cultivation, sujiera- 
Imndant moisture in tlie soil in the spring, drought in summer, and the train of dis- 
eases which accompany the low vitality of the plant from whatever cause, and, 
finally, the effect of frost in arresting tlie development of half-mature liber and in 
discoloring it. The relative influence of each cause in damaging the crop of 1873, as 
indicated by our correspondents, may be stated in the following order in the different 
States : 

North Carolina. — Rains, frost, worms. 

South Carolina. — Eains. frost, worms. 

Georgia. — Worms, more than all other causes combined; rains, frost, drought, high 
■winds. 

Florida. — Storms of rain, worms. 

Alabama. — Worms, rains, frost. 

Mississipjn. — Worms, spring rains, drought, frost. 

Louisiana. — Worms, rains, high winds. 

Texas. — Worms, rains, drought, frost, bad gins and inexperienced ginners. 

Arkansas. — Rains, worms, drought, frost. 

Tennessee. — Drought, frost, rains, plant-lice, a cold and wet spring. 

In the Gulf States the greatest injury thus appears to have been wrought by worms,, 
excepting only Florida, where the devastating storms in September and October, par- 
ticularly that of September 19, proved more destructive than the cateri)illar, which 
was abundant and sufficiently injurious. Though the main damage by insects was 
done by the caterpillar (Anonilina) there was much loss occasioned by the boll-wonn 
(Heliothis Armigera) <'ind some injury in localities by the cotton-louse or Aphis. 

All through the South the efforts of the planters against the cottou- 
worm were this year marked by the first extensive use of Paris green. 
The fact that experiments with the " green " as a cotton-worm destroyer 
had been made during the season of 1872, was incidentally mentioned 
by Prof. J. Parish Stelle in an article in the Mobile Register in the tall 
of that year ;* and in a recent letter from Professor Stelle, he claims the 
credit of being the first to publicly recommend its use, through the col- 
umns of that pajier. Mr. J. Donovan, ofKushla, Ala., experimented 
with the poison in 1872, and claims (according to Mr. Schwarz) to be the 
first who ever api^lied it for the destruction of Aletia. Professor Stelle 
remarks in his letter that Mr. Donovan first applied it in obedience to a 
recommendation of his in the Register. Rev. W. A. Stickney, of Fauns- 
dale, Ala., informs me by letter that early in 1873 a Mr. Clark was sell- 
ing Paris green in Alabama for the destruction of the cotton-worm, and 
claimed that it had been fullj' tried the previous year in Texas. Mr. 
Stickney says: "I could not ascertain whether the experiment had 
been applied to crops preceding 1872. But from that year (1872), if not 
still further back, Clark's formula derived warranty." 

In May, 1873, Prof. C. V. Riley publicly recommended Paris green as a 
cotton- worm destroyer before the Indianapolis meeting of the American 
Agricultural Congress, and in his Sixth Missouri Entomological Report 
mentions the fact that he had suggested it the previous year in the fol- 
lowing words : 

In June, 1872, at the organization in Saint Louis of the National Agricultui-al Con- 
gress, there were present many delegates from the Sou,tli. It was my privilege on that 

* Eeimpr. Southern Farm and House, October 1672, p. 457. 



FIRST USE OF PAKIS GREEN. 39 

occasion to lecture before the cougTess on ecouoniic entomology, and to suggest, in 
answer to inquiries from Gen. William H. Jackson, of Nashville, Tenn., and Dr. J. O. 
Wharton, of Ferry, Miss., that the Paris green mixture which Avas doing such good 
work in preserving our potato fields against the ravages of the Colorado potato-l)eetle 
might prove eciually efficient against the ravages of the inse(>t which takes the place 
of this potato enemy in the cotton fields of the South. 

At the Iii(liana])olis meetino- of the congress, according to Professor 
Stelle, after the reading of Professor lliley's paper, Mr. Donovan rose 
and made the statement that he had used the poison the previous year, 
] 872, at the recommendation of the Mobile Eegister. The whole question 
indeed, as to Avhom the credit is due, is involved in doubt ; it is, however, 
not a question of paramount importance. 

In early fall, 1873, the following circular was issued by Commissioner 
Watts, with a view of ascertaining the practical workings of Paris 
green : 

PROTECTION AGAINST COTTON INSECTS. 

To Coryespondtnts : 

The annual losses of cotton from ravages of cotton insects amount possibly to half 
a million bales in years of insect prevalence. One-fourth of a million bales would be 
deemed a light iuHiction, and yet, at !|100 per bale, such a loss would be equivalent to 
125,000,000. The methods to be employed for lessening their ravages have been here- 
tofore canvassed by the entomologist of this department. The remedy can only be 
applied by the planters themselves, and their own experience can best render practi- 
cable and efficient the means employed. 

Numerous correspondents have of late been experimenting with a mixture of Paris 
green and Hour or plaster, dusted on the plants when wet with dew — a remedy which 
has proved very efficient against the Colorado potato-beetle and other insects. Some 
report this remedy efiectual against the cotton-caterpillar, while others declare it of 
no value whatever ; others, still, hesitate to try it for fear of poisoning. It is of the 
utmost importance that the facts in the exi)erience of planters the present season 
should be carefully reported, showing the quality and jiroportions of material used, 
the method and frequency of its application, and the observed results, that a thorough 
test may be made of its value or worthlessness. The answer of the following questions 
is therefore requested : 

I. What is the result of your experience or observations as to the efficacy of Paris 
green, or other arsenical compounds mixed with flour or plaster, for the destruction of 
the cotton-caterpillar f 

II. In what proportions, and in what mode, time, and frequency of ai)plication have 
experiments been made ? 

III. Have any injurious eft'ects of the poison been observed, either upon the plants 
or the soil, or in human poisoning in its application, or in the destruction of beneficial 
insects, as bees, »fec ? 

ly. Have you used any other remedies, or means of extirpation, such as fires or 
torches in the fields to destroy the perfect moths on their first appearance, and with 
what success ? 

Yours, resppctfully, 

FRED'K. WATTS, 

Commissioner. 

The report on the answers to this circular as published in the depart- 
ment report for 1873 show the results of most experiments with Paris 
green to be highly favorable to its use as a remedy, and it has since 
been extensively used throughout the South. There are still many wliO' 



40 REPORT UPON COTTON INSECTS. 

earnestly protest agaiust the use of this poisou; but a discussion as to 
its merits does not belong here, and will be found in Chapter YII, 
under the head of " Remedies." 

After 1873 — the climax — came 1874 which may be called an auti-cli- 
max. 1874 was a remarkably dry year over nearly the whole of the cotton 
belt, Texas alone suffering more perha])8from worms than from drought. 
The result was, as it has been in so many cases, that the injuries of the 
caterpillars underwent a most wonderful diminution from those of the 
l)reviou.s year, and very few localities report 1874 as a severe worm year. 
The caterpillars made their appearance in June in Southern Texas, but 
increased remarkably slowly with successive broods. Toward the latter 
])art of the season, however, they were present in destructive numbers in 
many counties. Paris green was used to a considerable extent this year 
aiul with success in some localities. The correspondent from Lavaca 
<'ounty reports "caterpillars would have been destructive but for the use 
of Paris green.*' From Harris County the report was, "Paris green keeps 
them in check." The greatest losses were reported from the widely-sep- 
arated counties of Burnet and Hardin, IJurnet reporting 40 ])er cent, loss 
and Hardin 33 per cent. The top croj) was destroyed in Austin and Ban- 
ilera. Considerable damage was done in Colorado, Waller, Fayette, Polk 
and Cherokee. The worms were on hand, but little injury was done in San 
Jacinto, Walker, Upshur and in most of the more northern counties. In 
Mississippi the cro]) suft'ered severely from drought, and in most locali- 
ties the case was, as the correspondent from Kemper County expressed 
it, " tlie drouglit killed tlie cotton and the Avorms too." The leaves were 
stripped, however, in Lowndes, Wilkinson and several other counties, 
-which served to make the plants still more suscei)tible to the drought. 
In Hancock County, down on the (lulf coast, the crop suffered severely 
from the caterpillars. The correspondent from that county said : " Here- 
tofore it was thought that worms would not injure cotton on the sea- 
shore, but this hope has pro\'ed fallacious." 

In Louisiana, the chenille made its appearance in early June, Bapides 
being the first parish to report its presence. The damage done in the 
State was not at all great, as from the slow increase occasioned by 
drouglit and parasites, they did not attain injurious numbers until it was 
too late to do nuich harm. ♦ 

In Alabama the crop was a poor one, but this was due jiiore to drought 
than to insect ravages. Several counties, it is true, rei)orted " ruined 
by drought and caterpillars''; l>ut the caterpillars were invariably 
subordinated to the drought. The correspondent from Coffee County 
reported " some worms, but the drought was too much for them." Bar- 
bour and surrounding counties reported them as " not bad," and esti- 
mated the loss at perhaps one sixth of the crop. In Florida the state 
of affairs was much the same ; the damage from insects was compara- 
tively insignificant. I^early all localities reported that the hot weather 
killed 'the caterpillars. 



THE MIGRATION THEORY. 41 

111 (ic'oigia the worms were widespread — a natural result from the 
great invasion of the jirevious year. In Early they were seen July 1, 
and had done some little damage Itefore picking season. In Schley they 
appeared too late to do harm, and in Muscogee were seen upon bottom 
lands only. Some damage Avas done in Dodge, Wilkes, Jackson, and 
several other counties, and Murray suffered a loss of 40 per cent. In 
South Carolina they were seen in a few localities, some crops being dam- 
aged in Beaufort and Kichlaud Counties. Pamlico County, ISTorth Caro- 
lina, reported " the worm," but it is difticult to saj' whether the cotton- 
worm or the boll-worm is meant. 

In the latter part of this year Mr. A. R, Grote read a paper before 
the Hartford meeting of the Ameiican Association for the Advance- 
ment of Science, in wliick he announced that, after long study and 
personal observation, lie had come to the conclusion that " the cotton 
worm may be considered' not a denizen, but a visitant brought by A^a- 
lious causes to breed in a strange region, and that it naturally dies out 
with us in the cotton belt, unable to suit itself as yet to the altered 
economy of its food plant and to contend with the changes of our 
seasons." 

This is, of course, nothing more than a repetition of the mirjration 
theory, as we may call it, which Thomas Affleck, Dr. Gorham, and Dr. Bur- 
nett had successively and independently put forth as the result of their 
study into the natural history of this insect, and it is a very interesting- 
fact, that a man of Mr. G rote's scientific ability should have arrived at 
the same result through independent observation and reasoning. It is 
also a curious and interesting fact that one of the arguments by which 
Dr. Gorham reached this theory, and one of the main arguments by 
which Mr. Grote arrived at the same point, started from bases as diam- 
<!tricallv opposed to each other as two bases could well be ; namely, the 
existence and the non-existence of parasites. Dr. Gorham visits the 
cotton fields after the last brood of worms has spun uj), and, finding 
every chrysalis that he tries to breed parasitized, jumjis to the conclu- 
sion that all of the last brood are parasitized. The natural question 
now is, where w ill they come from next year '! and the natural conclu- 
sion, from some exterior country where the cotton plant is perennial and 
parasites do not exist. Mr. Grote's observations, on the other hand, 
failed to show him any parasite, although he acknowledged that such 
might exist ; and the absence of such peculiar parasites argued that the 
worm was not a regular denizen, and could be accounted for only by the 
spreading of the insect as a moth. Since Mr. Grote again put the old 
theory into shape, it has been much discussed by /those interested, its 
princi])al opponent being Professor Riley. Yet that the latter plainly 
aeklowledged the strength of Mr. Grote's arguments is seen in the cot- 
ton-worm circular of 1878, (See introduction.) A special chapter will 
1)6 devoted to this subject. 

In March, 1854, some six months before Mr. Grote read his Hartford 



42 REPORT UPON COTTON INSECTS. 

paper, Mr, Towueud Glover was casually placed on record* as favor- 
ing what may be called a partial immigration theory, iu the following' 
words : 

The tlieory of our entomologist, which he deems to be snfficieutly verifietl Ijy some 
years of study in the field as to the movement and spread of the caterpillar, is that iu 
the more northern jiortion of the cotton belt the frosts of winter destroy the, insect iu 
all its stages, unless in situations of unusual protection, but that in the more southern 
portion, where severe frosts rai'ely occur, they survive the risks of winter, and as they ' 
increase, by their repeated generations during the summer, they migrate northward 
■^n the fly-state (the perfect insect) to " fresh fields and pastures new." This would 
account for the general prevalence of the insecton the gulf coast and its comparative 
scarcity and late apjiearance in the more northern regions, which facts are by no 
means singular in the records of the past year, but in accordance with the historj' of 
former visitations. 

All credit should be given to ^Ir. (Jlover for this phase of the theory, 
which the extended investigations of the past year show to have been 
more nearly correct than any suggestion heretofore made. Indeed, the 
work of Mr. Glover on cotton insects, the results of which are scattered 
all through the Department of Agricultiue reports from 1854 to 1874, is 
by far the most valuable that has been done by any one person. This 
tribute is due to Mr. Glover, and we can only regret that a painful dis- 
ease debars him from prolonged scientific work. 

In 1875, instead of an increase over the preceding year, we see a still 
further decrease in the prevalence of the cotton caterpillars, owing to 
nearly the same causes which produced the decrease in 1874. Eighteen 
hundred and seventy-five was another very dry year, and in August and 
September there was an occasional severe storm, causing great damage- 
From these causes the cateri)illars were so held in check that in the 
monthly report for September, 1875, Ave find the following statement : 
" Losses from prevalence of insects will scarcely be a factor in calculat- 
ing the product of the present year." In fact, the only State in which 
much damage was done was Florida. In Texas they were first seen iu 
July, but in very small numbers. In Austin County alone do they ap- 
pear to have done any material damage, unless we except Polk County, 
where the crop is said to have been " partially destroyed." Slight in- 
juries were reported from Matagorda, Fayette, Waller, Hardin, AV^alker, 
Limestone, Bosque, and Upshur. From Louisiana there were no reports 
of insect prevalence in 1875. The cotton- worm was there, but iu such 
small numbers that it would have been a waste of ink on the part of 
correspondents to mention it. From Arkansas the caterpillars were re- 
IJorted from Woodruff and Pope Counties. In ^lississippi the damage 
• was very slight. In Alabama the worms were more abundant than in 
the last-named States, but still did but little injury to the crop. In 
Lowndes they were reported to have eaten things clear, but iu other lo- 
calities they were not worthy of extended notice. In Florida the damage 
was greater. The caterpillars do not seem to have been noticed early in 

* Department of Agriculture, monthly Report, February and March, 1874, p. 125. 



HISTORY OF RAVAGES, 1876. 45 

the season, aud their coming in force later seemed all the more disas- 
trous from being- unexpected. The correspondent from Jackson County 
said: "After the appearance of a fine top crop, the caterpillars made 
their appearance in force and cut off all our hojies/' There were injuries 
in many localities, notably in Columbia and Leon Counties. In Georgia 
they were noticed in several localities, but their damage was very slight 
In South and North Carolina they appear not to have been noticed. 

In 187G there was a general increase in the numbers of the caterpil- 
lars and in the extent of their ravages. The following brief extracts 
from the monthly reports will serve to give a general idea of their preva- 
lence and importance : 

The caterpillar is cnu fined to the southerly portion of the Gulf States; its depreda- 
tions are most severe in Alabama. In most of the infested districts its reproduction 
was too late to destroy the top crops. - * » Caterpillars appeared about the mid- 
dle of July in Liberty County, Georgia, aud stripped the plants of leaves, but not so 
early as to materially injure the yield. Some damage by the caterpillars is reported 
in Early County, and in Muscogee. * * ^ Caterpillars have reduced the yield in 
Floridaj notably in Columbia County. * * * xhe caterpillar has been somewhat 
destructive to the top crop in portions of Alabama. The loss is estimated at 50 per 
cent, in Conecuh; at 40 per cent, iu Hale (50 in the southern portion), wliere the 
fields were swept as early as the 1st of September. ^ * * The causes of injury in. 
Mississippi are worms, drought, wet weather, and frosts. * * * The causes for 
injiu-y for 1876 may be summed up: drought on the Atlantic coast, the caterpiUars in 
the Gulf States, in Alabama especially, and the boll-worm in Arkansas. 

In Texas the caterpillars appeared in force much later than the pre- 
vious year, but yet were sufiiciently early to do considerable damage. 
The localities of their earliest appearance in Texas have nearly always 
been in the Colorado and Brazos bottoms, and these have also been 
almost universally the worst affected localities. This year, up the line 
of those rivers, Matagorda, Waller, Austin, Fayette, Bastrop, and Bur- 
net report the worst injuries that are reported from the State, while in 
counties both south aud north the worms were almost invariably too 
late. In Victoria the worms appeared later than last year, but stripped 
the leaves. In Lavaca only the late i^lantings were taken. In Mata- 
gorda they were "bad,'' and in Austin made a "clean sweep." Burnet 
lost 40 per cent, of the crop, but in Cherokee, Rusk, Upshur, aud neigh- 
boring counties, the damage was slight. In Louisiana and Arkansas 
the damage this year was slight, and occurred principallj^ in Rapides and 
Caddo Parishes, Louisiana, and in Nevada County, Arkansas. In Mis- 
sissippi, considerable injury was done, principally on the Alabama side 
of the State, in the counties of Jasper, Clarke, Kemper, and Lowndes. 
The Jasper County crop was greatly injured; in Clarke the whole top 
crop was taken ; in Kemper, the plants were stripped ; and in Lowndes^ 
a loss of from 35 to 50 jjer cent, was suffered. In other parts of the 
State the worms appeared, doing the most harm in Covington, Wilkin- 
son, Adams, Jefferson, and Rankin. Of these, Jefferson suffered the 
most — 25 jDer cent. In Alabama the worms were present in all parts of 
the State, from Baldwin to Lauderdale. Few localities outside of tlie 



44 KEPOET UPOX COTTOX INSECTS. 

fertile "cane-brake region'' were badly dainaged, however, the most 
notable exception being Conecnh Connty, where 50 per cent, of the croi> 
was lost. In Marengo, the i^lants Avere completely stripped. From 
Dallas, 40 per cent, loss was reported. The worms were injnrions in 
Lowndes, Montgomery, and Bnllock. The Autanga correspondent re- 
ported ''caterpillars l)y the million." In Perry, two-thirds of the connty 
was swept. Bibb lost one-half and Hall one-fonrth of the crop. Fur- 
ther north, although the worms were numerous, as a general thing they 
came too late. In Florida, the crop of a few counties was dainaged this 
year, but the injury was far from l)eing general. In Jackson County 
they appeared Jnly 1, and were destructive later. In tlefferson, the crop 
was badly injured, as also in Madison. In Columbia, the worms just 
barely put in an appearance in September. The caterpillars were preva- 
lent in quite a number of localities in Georgia, and did " souie considera- 
ble damage" both iu Muscogee and in Harris. In Early, they riddled 
the cotton in spots, but were not general. Twiggs reported them as 
being present iu force. In South Carolina no damage was done, the 
worms being seen in September, Init in small numbers. 

With 187G the monthly reports of the Department of Agriculture 
close, and since then there has been issued an occasional bulletin on the 
condition of crops. Much of our previous matter on the prevalence 
during each year since 18CC was based upon data from these monthly 
reports, in addition to that furnished by the 1878 correspondence and 
by the nuscellaueous articles published upon cotton insects. As a re- 
sult of the discontinuance of these reports, the data for 1877 and 1878 
are not as complete as those for previous years, and hardly as accurate. 

As a general cotton-worm year 1877 appears to have been somewhat 
worse than 187G. The marked feature this year was the immense 
amount of damage done in Texas, more particularly- in the southern 
portions of the cotton-growing region. In a bulletin in July, 1877,* we 
find that the following Texau counties were ahead}' infested: Uvahle, 
Atascosa, Victoria, Bra/oria, Hardin, and elasper. The following is 
from an August bulletin : 

The ]>ro.spect in Texas is marked by the appearance of the caterpillar. More than 
one-half of the counties reported are infested, not seriously as yet, except iu a few 
cases. In Lavaca the bulk of the crop is destroyed; iu Gonzales, 75 per cent., a com- 
plete wreck where preventives were not used. Poison is successfully applied by pru- 
dent planters. * « * The caterpillar has appeared iu the parishes of iS'a/HfXftHfi/V/, 
Bichland, a.m\ Claiborne, in Louisiana; in Perry, IVileox, and Conecnh, in Alabama; 
iu Cohimbia, Florida ; and in Brooks, Georgia. 

In addition to the localities already- mentioned, we glean the following 
from the answers of the geueral circular: In Fayette, Colorado, Aus- 
tin, Waller, Hardin, Walker, and Polk, the caterpillars were very 
numerous; in Anstin, inflicting a loss of 50 per cent.; in Hardin, 75 per 

* In these bulletins the reports are all sent in before the 12th of the month for which 
they are published. 



HISTORY OF RAVAGES, 1877 AND 1878. 45 

cent. ; and in Polk, •' total destruction." Tiiese rei)ort.s seem to make 
1877 as bad a worm year as Texas has experienced. 

In Louisiana tlie damage was comi^aratively slight. In addition to 
the parishes already mentioned, some iujnrj^ was reported from East 
Feliciana and Jackson. In Mississippi the worms were abundant only 
in the sonthern part of the State — in Wilkinson, Jefferson, Covington, 
and neighboring counties. In Alabama the caterj)illars were general 
but not very destructive comj)ared with preceding years. In Northern 
Florida they were abundant but not remarkably destructive, while 
Cleorgia was very slightly touched. 

In the winter of 1877-78, the bill creating the cotton-insect investi- 
gation passed Congress, and in early summer work was liegun. In 
June the following Texas reports came in : 

Uvalde: Cotton-worms appearing in small slioals. Atascosa: Cotton-worms making 
their aj>pearance here. Matagorda : The caterpillar has aiipeared in due courae of 
time ; will get his share of the crop. Brazoria : The cotton- worm has made its ap- 
pearance in some parts of onr county ; as yet it has done no damage to the catton. 
Victoria: The worms are playing havoc with the cotton. Lavaca: Cotton-worm re- 
ported in several localities. Fort Bend : Worms have made their appearance in some 
localities, but as yet have done no damage. Austin : The first brood of worms has ap- 
peared in several places. Hardin : The green- worm that always comes before the 
cotton-worm is here on the cotton ; also, the fly that lays the egg that produces the 
cotton-worm is here. Polk : Cotton-worms in abundance ; farmers are using Preston 
& Roberia's Texas worm-destroyer with great success. Jasper: "Worms are making 
their appearance in many jilaces, and if they come in great abundance the cotton 
crop will be a total failure. 

It is difficult to make any comparative estimate of the destrnction 
from caterpillars in 1878, since in most parts of the South all thought of 
other calamities was lost in the fear of the great epidemic. From such 
data as we have been able to gather, however, it seems to have been the 
worst year since 1873, in all the Southern cotton States excepting Texas, 
where it was exceeded by 1877. In spite of the general early appear- 
ance of the caterpillars in the latter State, little serions damage was 
done. The greatest injury seems to have been in Matagorda, Colorado, 
Washington, Polk, and Cherokee counties, but the loss probably did not 
exceed 20 i)er cent, in any of these. In Louisiana caterpillars were 
prevalent. They were destructive in East Feliciana, Concordia, Madi- 
son, Jackson, Bienville, Bossier, and Caddo Parishes; more particularly 
so in the last three named. Pope County, Arkansas, suffered a loss of 
25 per cent., and in Crawford they were nearly as bad. In Mississijjpi 
they were abundant in nearly aU of the cotton-growing counties as far 
north as Chickasaw, but, from the fact that in this State were the head- 
quarters of the fever, we have been able to get few particulars as to 
the abundance of the worms. In Alabama the damage was considera- 
ble. Many counties report the .presence of the worms with greater or 
less loss. The greatest damage was done in Monroe, Conecuh, Dale, 
Wilcox, Barbour, Low.ndes, Dallas, Montgomery, Macon, Autauga, 
Perry, Hale, Green, Sumter, and Pickens. The average loss was about 



46 EEPOET UPON COTTON INSECTS. 

from 15 to 20 per ceut. The correspoudeut from Pickens county says 
that the loss was one-third on low lands with late planting, and one- 
tenth on high lands with early planting. In Florida the damage to 
northern counties was not great, l3ut south, in Hillsborough, the cater- 
l)illars were very destructive. More or less damage was done in Marion, 
La Fayette, Columbia, Jackson, Jefferson, Leon, Gadsden, and Santa 
Rosa, but in none was it excessive. In Georgia the worms were aU over 
the State towards the end of the season, but in no locality was great 
damage done. They were perhaps more abundant in the southern 
counties of Thomas, Brooks, Baker, Mitchell, and Dougherty than else- 
where. In South Carolina they were not reported, but were found by 
Professor Eiley, in a short stop at Columbia, September IG. 

This brings the past history of the cotton-worm down to the present 
year. 



DAMAGE BY YEARS AND BY COUNTIES. 



47 









c3 . ^ 



^ ,i, 



pi 

— tM r- 



o _2 5 



^ \o C 



0.2 






O -tJ 



;h O M i» 

a ® 5 'i^ 



-/I « a -^ 



^ O rtj t 
O ii 3 -M 

EI i 3 









,^a55::qM-35^i-^^5M'5f=W?fSM3a»^?^x::if^5pqtJH 



48 



REPORT UPON COTTON INSECTS. 



in 

s 














:- 






























> 


■r 


i- 




'r- 


;4- 


■~ 


:- 


■^ 


^^ 










T-! 














































14 


-: 


1852.' 1853. 


\ 












;- 














r 


;- 




















































in 

00 

i-i 


'r 




:- 






v 


7- 
























:- 


r^ 


;~ 


- 












- 


4 


:- 


4 


-V- 


T-'. 


3 1 




























;- 


1 


."^ 


00 






^ 


- 


- 


- 


- 




'■> 
























- 








.-V 


00 

1-1 












7- 






















Y 






5; 

00 
















■ .a 
















:*« 








i-- 


r 




1845. 1846. 


- 


- 




- 


- 


~- 


- 


_- 
































: :^ 


> aIcs^ 






- 




























'. .'■* 


i \%%% 




'• o 


1843.' 1844. 

1 


















:*« 






>« 




: :*«t.S»*o« 


« « CJ 




;■'* 


- 


- 




































- 




: :- 




- 


-; 


:- 


H 


4 




! 1 






































i 




~ 














































\% 


- 


1 




































































2! 












































































00 


















































- 


























CO 

00 




























































in 

00 










- 


















- 


- 




- 












- 






















:- 


-:- 


f 




CO ' 
QO 










































1832. 












- 






























































1 ! 

o 

CO 
00 

00 , 

in i ; 

<M 

00 ] 















































_ 


-' 


















































-: 


- 


- 


- 




4- 










"~ 








-: 


-; 




-: 






~: 


-; 
























'\ 




-: 














-\ 
























QO ; 


























8 


■ 2 


C4 
S 


« 












a 
a 


1 1 

t-H 1 














■~ 












5 




c 

■A 
5 
















« : 










.s 

o 


3 

1 \ 
■i C- 

"r. 




.5 




i 




7. 


X 


1 


5 
< 


3 

S 
W 






■01 

< . 

i i 

a 

E 


V 


c^ 


■< 




§ 

1 

a 

o 

a 


'• 


o 


00 


^i' 


3 5 


_« 





TABLE OF LOSSES. 



49 



8 53 ' ■ rO JS '8 









4 c I 



; S c3 . : ; : g > • ; ;. : sa : r^ 

a* Ea 3 o T3 S P fl -? m -2 jij 5 o ® ^ 



■ago 



islslillllillHIIll 






50 



REPORT UPON COTTON INSECTS. 



"^ 



CO 














00 






" : 




: : : :« 




i 






•W ; 








2 






*« ; 








1 






■^ : 








a ::;;:::;;::::::::;•;: ; 


ij 


% ; 














% ! 








00 

00 


;;:;::::: [e :::::::;: : 




% : 








t^ 1 1 : ; : 1 : : 1 : 1 : : : : : : : : 1 ! 
S ;::;:;:;;:::;:;::::;; 




" 




; : : ;» 




50 


; M :: i ;•;;«; i ■;; IM: : 




* 




« ! ; i» 




2 


:;::::;:;;::;:;::: r : 




« 




o ! ! ' ! 




1 






« : 




: « ! ^ V lo '• 
















1-1 






» 


'■■> 






s 








'.'.%'. 






o 








'■■> 


! 1 ! ! o 








2 








\ :" : 






00 ::;::;;,':::::::;:::: 1 
00 : ! : ! 1 1 1 ! : 1 1 ! : 1 : 1 ; 1 1 : : 












00 1 1 : : : ! 1 1 ! : : 1 : 1 ! 1 ! ; : : 1 




" 




















1 


.■;;::;:;;;:::.::::::: 












1 i i M M M M N M M M ; M 












11 MMiMMMMMMNM 




■ * .... 






2 1 ;;::::::::::•:::::::: 












i 














in 1 : 1 1 : : 1 ! ! 1 1 ! 1 1 ! ! ! : . : '. ! 1 
2 :;;;:;;;:;:;;;:;;;;;: 




; i'^ ■ ; : : 


; ; : 1*8 




3 1 '■■■■■•'■:;:::;!';!,■.' 
00 : 1 1 1 : 1 ) 1 i ! I i ! 1 1 1 1 1 1 '. 1 












00 : : : 1 1 1 ! 1 ! : 1 1 1 ! 1 ! ! ! 1 1 1 












o 
o 


"^ ';■';'■•;■■!;;; I ;!.' I ! 

fl ;;;;;]; 1 ;;;;;;;;■:;; ; 

a :;:;;:;: 1 ;: 1 ! ;:!;;;: ; ^ 
o ■ • • B 

S' i : : : : i : : i ; : : i ; ! i ; i : i i 1 

J. ;;;:g;;::;::;'-:;;;;: W 

1 ^ ^m^^j=h-<f=;<^^:5^5>:j3;^^3mc5(2o & 




4 -3 = 
t 11 




• ^ '; ; • 

g^ : • n 


II 



TABLE OF LOSSES. 



51 



* ■■** • i.iii..+ 

«>>u^ "^ 

!;■■» o !!!!!!!!!! I !'!!'.! ! '.!!'.!'.'. .^j '.'.'.', '.'■,'. '. 

! I «« o i !!!!.'!'!!''!'!'.' '. I ! ! '. ! I ! « ! '. ! ! ^ '. '. ! '. 

: : :%% ::::::::;;:;;:;;:; ::::;; it,; :^ ::;:: : 




o ■ ' « 2 '■ 
B o "= ^ -4' "J "3 



Scj3t-+;c<'*Hfloo^ciO!a;'. S> 



52 



REPORT UPON COTTOiS[ INSECTS. 



I 




TABLE OF LOSSES. 53 







::;:;;:: ;1> ;;; : 




i^ \ 






























:^ ; 


















































■% : 
































































,•;:::::;:« ; : ; ; 




























, , 










:« : 


































































































h 












































































































54 



EEPORT UPON COTTON INSECTS. 






§ § 



1 








































S : 






































00 






































- 






































1 








































1-1 
















































































00 








































i 
















































































1 








































r^ 








































CO 
i-t 








































1 








































i 






































o 


' 














































































00 

1 








































o 1 

00 '. 






























- 


- 


- 


— 


































00 




































- 


— 


?3 
S 




































1 








































o 

CO 








































to 








































00 


































■- 




f- 


3 : 

00 
































00 








































1 


« 1. 


• : s ! : ; ; M 

: ; a ::■:■; 

■-a a •4S ■ • ■ ■ 


: i-TS • !>> : ; 

p.a a-2 S~-g g § 


a ° • 

t> ^ .^ 

o u.ti 

PhOPh 


11 

He 




:^ 

: E 










5C 


: 1 

JP 


9 

a 

; 


• < 

; ll 

I J 


! 
< 

5 C 

2C/ 




ll 


1 

I 

1 
< 



TABLE OF LOSSES. 



55 



00 


r. 




* 






« 


"- 




O 














*<3 


-k 


c 














^ 


t) 




o 


= 


O 


« 
o 






« 














« 




t> 


•e 


-« 


o 


u 


e 


8 










%x,% 














t> 




8 « 8 




*« 


























« !» 




-8 














O 


>Cl 






io 


■8 "8 « 








% 




*« 












*« : 














-8 


















% 


o 














•8 




» 


% 




■8 


































« 








« 




■^ o « 






^•8 




■8 "8 


ici 


^■8 


■8 












* < 


00 




o <» 


« «^ «rfS 




« 






«%) 


JOJi U oS) 




«« 


« (j 


o 


« «rfS 


o 


e 8 « «> 


00 










« « 




:-« « 










« 


■8 














% 


» 




» 




■8 
















i 












■s 










■8 






* 
"8 


■8 




•8 « 






■8 


•8-8 


•8 




■8 












•O > 


i 






rfS^ 




















» 


« 


8 










" 








« 


o <a 




« 










rH 








■a 


A 


















» 








•« 






. % 








« 




<b 
















00 




























ii 


» 


•o u 










« « 




8 


« 




« 


•8 












00 




























\i 


8-0 8 
























8 




io 












« I 


CO 

to 








e 








J3 « 












io 


2i 












« 






A 


8 




« 






-8 








OO 
































» 




























« 




o 
















l-i 
































« 


















































-: 


00 
































» 


■o 














































3 
































■8 


































% 
















































« 




















































































*« 


















































-: 


1 
































» 
























% 
























i 












































































































































































00 






















































































s 

•-;3 

5 

o 


a 
1= 




< 


i 

1 


T 

c 

> 


c 


si 
1 


c 

■ir 


; 

at 


1 

C" 

C 


a 
c 


< 




1 


C" 


a 

a 


C 

■r 

c 
t- 
c 


1 


(- 
1 


r 


c 


c 


i 


1 


p 

c 


) 




> 

1 


"■c 

ft 


c 

e 






1 

£ 
1 

c 


1 


a 




c 


> 


•> 
1 


o 

!2i 


1 


<1 



56 



REPORT UPON COTTON INSECTS. 



OA . . O 



. .A «) u u o u 



8 . 8>o ■« e 



•^ 



8 «j:>.o o . e 



» «ja « e e-o 






^■3 is 

2 a >-:r' 



I fSlI it|i 3.5-31 1 ?l 




TABLE OF LOSSES. 



57 



«dO<...AU-<'Ui'U 



««!i -tipO^Wtt^iTS 



^ O « O . « W 



«.o «^ e 



rfS 1 o « 






'as 



2 ci te 












2^.2 S g^ 






a « :; fH ^ .^ 












58 



REPORT UPON COTTON INSECTS. 



-^ 



GO 








« 


1j 








o 


" 


















o 


*« 






o 




'^ 


w 






'^ 






** 


"^ 


•» 


o 


1 






































^ o : 


h 










» 






o* « 


00 










A 


























*« 8 : 


» ts 




».o I 


■8 « 


jstSo « 








« 
































%43 




% 


















" i 


« 


00 










« 






•« [ 


















t>\l 


•e^ 


» : 






«« 




t> « 


m 

00 


.o « 


u » 


JS O «1 






u 








■o 


« «««««^e^««io«««jseg 


5 




'. « 


« Q : 






w-e^i 


















» e 




« 




■0.0 e 








-o « » 


i 














• 


■e 






tt-Q 










%'e 




» 




e 




" 




«%>« ; 


o 
So 






































-a 






4j 












O 




%%% 


i 






































w 






« 










» 






rfS « » 


00 

1-i 


ji : ft 


■o 












« 








•<3 








%%> 




« 


wt 




% 






*«1»1> 


i 










» 




« 












« 






Vrf3 




A 










% 






*«*»*« 


r-1 


« ! 












A 




















« 






» 










& 






«io 


oo 






































ts 






'« 


















*«« i 


i 






































% 


























1,13 1 


i 






























































O «1> 


i 




































« 




























% 


tH 






































*« 


























1> 




o 
o 

00 






:• 






























» 


























« 




00 






































































00 

00 


















» 


















































1 






































; ''5 
































00 
r-l 

n 
o 

1 






































. ^ 
































1 

a 
o 

o 

X 

a, 

i ; 


1 : 

a « 


■ a 

Is 


> 1 




n 
c 


I" 

-( 

J 


3 : 


; 

3 - 


' 3 


3 
3 






i 

a. 

y 


■ 1 

a'-' 


5 

5 i 

; 5 






1 n 

5 P 


1 

< 

c 




- 

h 

3C 


y 


(S 


>; ? 

u 




5 


hP 




3 

c 
1C 


■ e 
PC 


3 5 






Hi 



TABLE OF LOSSES. 



59 



U'Q • •'^OVC^UOC^ 



O U O i u u «> 



o • o . o u 



\>% 



«.o 8.0 « « 



«o« .o ■oootS'S 



.o » orfi.o e-o e^J-o-a 



o« • »o » «'e 



.c>uuuA,aA(3ScjSe 



j:>«i3«wo8^.c>rfi«.cirfSo 



o o ceisis 



•tt ••8'«':3'tt'e 



• A «> u u o u u 



0« U U tt.0 u o 









tBfj 



i|ll,|f.|i2||liil II 



w t- 2 

n o. 






2 ^"3 ''^> 
WowoA 



60 



REPORT UPON COTTON INSECTS. 



O 



»^ 



's 

':?. 



00 




.-a w 






;%%%%%•« « « 










:■« o 










••e 










•^ ' 


j-rs-o 














1 






o 
















































































i 

00 














o 








































« « 








*« 


















1 














« 














,*« 
























































•* 
ss 

iH 














" 














« 




u 


u 


u 




«"« 


« « 






■« 




















1 


o a 




" 


A 






UAA u 


> 




AfCAAApCrOfO 


s 




"«•© 






o o o 




! « 


1 


A 




^ 




« 




e 


o 


A o 












O O 


UA U 


« 










o 






u 




o 




i 




















u 


u 


* 
















%% 




































i 
















































*» 




































<3> 
1 


U 


•a 






















O A 


A 












o o 


































1 


8 








A 
















* 


« 


u 






■It * 


t> 




« 


>o 






lO 














i 








« 








































































































A 
























































in 


















































































% : 


' 3 

00 
















































\ 






































i 
























































































s 

s 












« 


































































- 


- 


- 


-4 


00 
















































































s 

00 


















































































--. 


- 


-4 


i 






































































- 












s 

s 












O 








































































5 

00 
























































































00 
























































































1 

o 


g 


I 
o 

H 


1 

2 


1 


1 


a 

-r 

n 


> 
1 


1 


5 

6 


PQ 


> 

G 


t 

o 

,a 
■a 

O 

P 


J 


o 


o 
O 


3 


1 
3 






bX 

O 




> 

"o 

o 

p 


t-t 


1 

4) 

02 


o 

o 
o 
o 


1 


> 
3 

M2 


o 


8 

3 


1 


c 
H 


o 


1 

1 

iH 
O 


2 

s 




>3 


"3 
S 






a 

o 

o 
Id 


1 


u 
o 

5 


3 

P9 


i 

o 



TABLE OF LOSSES. 61 



■.o -e 



o» .rfb^otj.oo . . . ■ .Orfi •«,CiUCo« • ■« • . .•^•eo'53 •^'Q'e'CS'e'B 



<)'UiSUUiUu.u <:>,.u 



e • '8.0 ' ■.a.oTffu-cioo'arfi 



bj)g : : : : 

3-e «r-; (D ■ 




'.J3 






IligifisliiilllJllllll-.ljIll - llliifilllisilil 



62 



REPORT UPON COTTON INSECTS. 



■e'e'e'«'8 ^ts-e « ■ ••« 



'I^ 



III 



■ -^ a T ~ ^ - 



.a . 

o s a 



o,M 



I fl ° ' ^ *^ 



a S*; c, vj f-SSB P erg 



a 



® 2 






STATISTICS OF LOSSES. 63 

STATISTICS OF LOSSES. 

Ill estimating- the amount of injury to the cotton crop of the entire 
cotton-growing section, or a single State, for a given year or a series of 
years, it is exceedingly difficult to obtain anything more than an approxi- 
mate result. In the first place, the area under cultivation is so large, 
and the localities of severest injury so scattered, even in the same county, 
that the record of a single observer, or even two or three, will hardly suf- 
fice to give the true average for the whole county, and the same remarks 
will apply as well in an attempt to make up the State average. There 
are many minor considerations entering into the calculation, which, if 
not carefully weighed, will tend to perceptibly change the final figures. 

In numbers of instances we have reported, for a given year, the loss 
of the entire crop, which, perhaps, for the whole county may only repre- 
sent a loss of 60 to 70 per cent. As will be shown hereafter, the more 
forward the crop the less liablility there is to its being overtaken by dis- 
aster. If, however, the crop is grown upon low, wet land, or has been 
subject to an undue amount of rainfall, or worse, has had only careless 
or imperfect cultivation, the percentage of loss will be much higher than 
in more favorable localities, or under more favorable conditions, and an 
estimate based on returns from such localities would be far from the cor- 
rect one. This is shown by reports from different parts of the same 
county, one planter placing the loss at one-third, while another states 
that the damage will hardly reach a twentieth, which may be called a 
" slight injury." 

In some years the cotton is aflected by rust to a greater or less 
extent. 

In Lowndes County, Alabama, in 1866 there was a loss of 30 per cent., 
owing to the lateness of the cotton over a considerable area, caused by 
old seed having been planted ; and in the same county, in 1873, wet 
weather and the w orms together caused almost a coin]>lete failure ; the 
wet weather was responsible, in this case, for 22 per cent, of the loss. 

In portions of Louisiana, in 1841, the greatest losses resulted from in- 
jury to quality rather than quantity — from litter and excrement dropped 
by worms upon the open bolls. Frequently other insects are responsi- 
ble for a portion of the damage — the aphis, the cut- worm or the boll- 
worm; and while their injuries are, comparatively sj)eaking, small, still 
they should be taken into account as far as possible. In consideration 
of all these causes of loss, as they are more than likely to be charged 
to the account of the cotton-worm by the local observers, after getting 
as correct an estimate as possible from data furnished, it is necessary to 
place the percentage somewhat lower to be within bounds. 

YEARS OF LOSSES. 

Many of the "oldest inhabitants" remember the year 1825 as one of 
severe injury, the reports varying from 33 per cent, to almost total de- 



64 REPORT UPON COTTON INSECTS. 

stniction. As an example, a record of 10 bales to 500 acres is given as 
an average for Conecuh County, Alabama. In 1846 and 1847 thefigui'es 
again run bigh, and are given from 33.3 to G6.6 per cent. The returns 
for the years that follow, up to the period of the war, are quite meager, 
but still suflicient to show that the worms were at work in places, some 
years doing considerable damage. For the years since the war the re- 
ports point to severe losses, the figures probably ranging highest in 1873, 
when 50 per cent, of injury is common, and even 66 to 90 per cent, 
quoted. Mr. P. D. Bowles, of Evergreen, Ala., gives as the general aver- 
age for all years since 1868, 50 per cent., which maj- be correct for south- 
ern sections of the State, though very high for the State as a whole. 

In tabulating the returns for years since the war, reports of "complete 
failure" or "almost total loss" are frequently found from nearly all the 
Gulf States, and rejiresenting almost every year. Statements of 50 to 75 
per cent, occur more frequently, the greater losses having been suffered 
in Texas and Florida, although in the lower central counties of Alabama, 
I)articularly upon what is known as the black lands or "black belt," the 
destructiveness has been severe in all years of insect j) re valence. A loss 
of one-third is of common occurrence ; indeed a majority of the returns 
indicate for bad years, in localities of heaviest production, a general 
average of 25 to 33 per cent. Of course the percentage for the more 
northern portions of the State, or those portions where cotton is less 
generally grown, are so very much lower that it must make considerable 
difference with the general average for the whole area of cotton produc- 
tion. 

The following extracts of replies to a circular sent out by the depart- 
ment will give some idea of the worst years of injury from the cotton- 
worm, and amount of loss in particular localities : 

Woodville, Wilkinson County, Mississippi. — lu 1825 and la46 fully 50 per cent. ; in 1867, 
1868, autl 1873, probably 25 per cent. Many other yeais, and for several successive 
years, in cei-tain localities, I have known the crop wholly destroyed in July, so that not 
enough seed w as matured to plant the next crop. 

AUeyton, Colorado County, Texas. — One bale to 100 acres in 1867. 

Moscow, Polk County, Texas. — In 1867 and 1873, the loss Avas total; in 1877, about 75 
per cent. 

Texarkana, Miller County, Arkansas. — During the years 1865, 1866, and 1867, the worms 
destroyed at least 25 per cent, of the crop each year ; and in some portions of the Red 
River lauds the entire crop on many plantations. 

E'jergreen, Conecuh County, Alabama. — In 1825 the oldest farmers now living estimate 
the loss at 98 per cent. ; loss in 1867, at least 66.6 per cent. ; in 1868, 25 per cent. ; in 
1873, about 40 per cent., some i>Iaclng it at 75 and some 90 per cent. ; in 1874, about the 
same as 1873. In 1874 Mr. C. Drumond gathered 900 pounde of seed-cotton from 14 
acres, which would have produced 1,000 pounds per acre. 

Waterboro, Colleton County, South Carolina. — About three-fourths of a crop in most 
years, when worms have been general, and in some neighborhoods seven-eighths. 

Burkville, Lowndes County, Alabama. — In 1873 the loss was 70 per cent. This year, 
[1878] on the bottom and lime lands, a loss of 20 percent, is claimed. 

Columbia, Brazoria County, Texas. — During many years three-fourths of the crop is 
destroyed. 



EXAMPLES OF LIGHT AND HEAVY DAMAGES. 65 

Ashicood Station, Wilkinson County, Mississippi.— In 1873, 40 to 50 per cent. 

Station Creek, Covington County, Mississippi.— In 1847 and 1848, probably 50 per cent. 

Benison^s Landing, Perry County, Tennessee.— It is quite difficult to give even an ap- 
proximation of the loss sustained in the State or county during years of the severest 
visitation; for while old, largo farms have lost maybe 50 to 75 per cent., new, small 
farms, inclosed by dense forests, have suffered very frequently none at all. 

Isabella, Worth County, Georgia. — In a bad worm year, wet and cool, they destroy all 
the top cotton, and necessarily it is cut off^ one-half. 

Faunsdale, Marengo County, Alahama. — In 1872 and 1873 the cotton crop was cut short 
one-half. 

Tionus, Bill) County, Alahama. — In 1866, abovit one-third ; in 1871, about one-half; in 
1872, one-fourth ; in 1873, one-eighth ; and in 1876, one-half. 

Hawkinsville, Barbour County, Alabama. — In 1873, I am satisfied I lost one-half of 
my crop ; in 1868 and 1874, one- sixth ; and in 1878, one-fifth. 

Gilmer, Upshur County, Texas. — Two-thirds during the years of greatest damage, 
though all fields are not attacked alike ; it depends upon the locality of the field and 
maturity of the crop. 

Millheim, Austin County, Texas. — In the year 1863, the worm having been very de- 
structive, destroyed about 25 to 30 per cent, of the crop. In 1868, the first appearance 
of the worm ha\ing been the earliest on record, the crop was nearly destroyed the first 
part of July, and injured more than 50 per cent. 

Morrison^s Mills, Alachua County, Florida. — In some fields I have seen four-fifths de- 
stroyed ; in others, not exceeding one-fifth, though both were entirely eaten over by the 
worm. But I think it safe to say the destruction generally amounted to one-third in 
bad years. 

Milton, Florida. — In the black lands of Montgomery and Lowndes Counties, Alabama, 
the worm rarely if ever destroyed less than one-half, and often three-fourths of the 
crop. 

Saint Frajicisville, West Feliciana Parish, Louisiana. — In 1846 the cotton crops here 
were cut short from 50 to 60 per cent. In the last fourteen years the destructive years 
were particularly 1867, 1871, 1872, and 1873. 

Waverly, Walker County, Texas. — I cannot make any attempt at estimates of losses, 
as I have never kept any data ; but millions of dollars have been lost, and many farmers 
brought .to ruin and jioverty. 

Turning from the gloomy side of the question there are returns of 
" slight injury" from many localities. In North Carolina the worms are 
so late in making their appearance, the planters generally consider them 
a benefit, as they eat off the top leaves, and allowing the sun and air to 
come to the lower bolls, ripen, and cause them to open better. This is 
likewise the case in some locations, as far south as Louisiana and Texas ; 
a correspondent in Waller County, in the latter State, attributing 
the damage to a too favorable growth of the plant, in which case the 
worms, by strij^ping the leaves, benefited rather than injured the crop. 
It is not unusual to find reports of slight loss in counties adjoining those 
where the injury has been considerable. We give a few returns as ex- 
amples of slight injury: 

Faycttevillc, Cumberland County, North Carolina. — So late in making their appearance 
in this latitude, it is doubtful if tlicy ever do any injury. 

Buena Vista, Marion County, Georgia. — The losses from worms in this county have 
been very small, not one bale out of 1,000, 

Atauquarille, Autauqua County, Alabama. — My general impression is that in the aggre- 
gate the losses have not been considerable. 

5 c I 



66 EEPOET UPON COTTON INSECTS. 

Greenville, Hunt County, Texas. — The loss in our county was very slight ; » » • 
few fields were visited, and those in isolated spots, where the plant grew more luxu- 
riantly ; and only the upper branches, which were tender, were attacked. 

Other examples could be given, but these will suffice. 

GENERAL ESTIMATES OF LOSS. 

lu the report of the statistician of the Department of Agriculture 
for 1877, the loss by the cotton-worm was estimated for that year at 
$15,000,000, much the larger portion in Texas, though the injury was 
considerable as far east as the cotton belt of Alabama.* Notwithstand- 
ing this great loss, the year was one of unusual harvest, and with this 
consideration in view, the figures offer a suggestion as to the fearful 
amount of damage that must follow in a year of general visitation. 

In the Entomologist's Report, in the annual report of the Department 
of Agriculture for 1873 (p. 164), there appears a general estimate, also 
furnished by the statistician, which placed the amount of damage at 
possibly half a million bales, in years of insect prevalence. One-fourth 
of a million bales he considers a slight infliction, and yet at $100 per 
bale, the loss would be equal in round numbers to $25,000,000. 

A number of general estimates have been given by local observers in 
reply to a cotton-worm circular recently sent out by this department, 
which in the main are not far out of the way. Mr. J. F. Culver, Union 
Springs, Ala., estimates the loss in Bullock County, at about 5,000 
bales, which amounts to $250,000 at the rate of $50 per bale. Mr. H. 
Hawkins, of Hawkinsville, Ala., who lost one-half of his crop in 1873 
and one-lifth in 1878, makes a rough estimate for Barbour County, in 
most years of $50,000. For the year 1878, the losses to Pope County, 
Arkansas, from cotton-worms are given in round numbers by Mr. T. S. 
Edwards, of Gum Log, at $100,000 ; and a glance at figures in the 
Ninth Census Report, keeping in view the enormous increase in cot- 
ton productions in Texas and Arkansas since 18G9, would seem to bear 
out the statement. 

RATIO OF LOSS BETWEEN EARLY AND LATE CROPS. 

While the date of appearance of the worm has much to do with the 
amount of damage to a croji — an appearance in July, August, or Sep- 
tember, in i>arts of Texas, amounting to 75, 50, and 25 per cent, of 
loss, respectively — still upon i^lantations where the cotton is late in 
coming to maturity, the greatest losses may be expected, generally 
speaking ; and any causes that tend to retard the growth of the plants, 
only serve to increase the percentages of injury. In former years,' in 
the eastern part of Mississippi, there was a certainty of most of the 
blossoms "making" that came by the 10th of September; now they 
cannot be counted upon after August 1. In the center of the cotton 
belt in Alabama, as a rule, when a good stand has been secured early 

* Annual Report for 1877, p. 156. 



ESTIMATES OF LOSS BY STATES. 67 

in the season, the bulk ot cotton generally forms and matures before 
the appearance of the worm in great numbers, and the loss is small, 
while in late fields, as high as 66 per cent, has been lost. 

Mr. J. H. Calloway, of Montgomery County, Alabama, gives the fol- 
lowing as his opinion upon the subject : 

When the crop is well advanced, the land being well prepared, and planted just as 
early as the season will permit, cultivated well and rajiidly, and, as the saying is, 
pushed from the word "go," the loss is much less than when planted late and poorly 
cultivated. 

Mr. David Lee, of Mount Willing, Lowndes County, Ala., says : 

If the season is favorable, the cotton planted early, and well cultivated, much is 
gained, and the loss would be light, as there would be less for the worms to destroy. 
But if the spring is cool and wet, and the summer wet, the crop will, of necessity, be 
badly cultivated, and consequently will be late ; under such disadvantages the crop 
would be cut oif one-third. 

ESTIMATES OF LOSS BY STATES. 

In estimating the total amount of losses from the ravages of cotton- 
worms in the United States, the data extends over such a long period — 
from 1825 to 1878 — we are only able to form a general average for a 
series of years. In calculating the quantity destroyed, an average crop 
of the past fourteen years, which is only a little larger than an average 
crop of fourteen years prior to 1861, is taken as the basis. Such average 
is an increase of about 25 per cent, upon the crop of 1869, a little in ex- 
cess of three and a quarter millions of bales. 

In estimating for the States, especially where the data is incomplete, 
as it necessarily must be, the localities of heaviest production must be 
considered and due allowance made for counties producing only a tenth, 
or perhaps, a twentieth as much, on account of greater isolation of the 
plantations. A loss of 25 per cent, in Dallas County, Alabama, as an 
example, would represent in round numbers a decrease in value of the 
crop to the extent of $360,000, while the same percentage of injury for 
the same year in Marion County, would represent a loss of but $7,000. 
It is therefore necessary, after a percentage of injury has been calcu- 
lated from the data in hand, to study location and the amount of cotton 
there produced in favorable years, and allowing a small deduction for 
other causes of loss that may not have been noted, to strike a general 
average for the whole State, which will be found from 5 to 10 per cent, 
lower. 

Although the losses in recent years have been more severely felt in 
Texas than in any other State, we select Alabama to illustrate the 
method of obtaining an estimate, partly from the fact that it represents 
the average of injury, but more particularly because the fullest returns 
have been received from this section of the cotton-growing region. These 
returns have been received from the cotton belt of heaviest producing 
counties, thirteen in number, as follows : Hall, Sumpter, Marengo, Perry, 



68 REPORT UPON COTTON INSECTS. 

Wilcox, Monroe, Lowndes, Montgomery, Bullock, Pickens, Greene, 
Crenshaw, and Conecuh, the last four lying just outside the lines of 
heaviest production, as indicated in the Annual Report of the Depart- 
ment of Agriculture for 1876.* 

Montgomery County produced in 1869, according to the Mnth Census, 
25,000 bales in round numbers ; add 25 per cent, to bring this production 
up to an average of 14 years, and the figures are 31,500 bales. From 
the reports of local observers, we find a fair estimate for a destructive 
year would be 30 per cent, for the county, or 9,450 bales. Taking the 
percentages of loss in the other 12 counties, in the same manner, and 
finding the number of bales they represent, the sum total of loss in the 
counties named above is found to be 56,790; dividing this decimally by 
the total crop of the 13 counties for an average year (or 224,700 bales), 
we find the average percentage of loss to be 25.2. But this percentage 
cannot be taken as correct in regard to the State as a whole, as these 13 
counties produce two-fifths of the cotton grown in Alabama, the other 
three-fifths representing 51 counties, the larger number of which lie 
above the center of the State. Here the plantations are not so liable to 
attack, owing to their greater isolation, or from their higher latitude 
cannot suffer as much when attacked, as the worms are sure to appear 
later, and for this portion of the State a fair estimate of loss would be 
12.5, or in round numbers 39,000 bales. This added to the loss in the 
cotton belt gives a total of 95,790 bales, upon a crop of 536,000. 

The average of 14 years for Alabama, at the rate of $50 per bale, 
which is low for a series of years, gives us the startling amount of 
$4,987,000, or nearly five millions, as the destruction in Alabama for a 
single year, when the worms are numerous. Startling as the figures 
may seem to those unacquainted with cotton-worm visitations, they 
doubtless would be found below the real amount of loss could we by any 
means ascertain it with certainty. 

In Georgia, the percentage of injury fot the whole State is a little lower, 
or 16.5 per cent. Sixteen cotton-growing counties, representing about 
one-fifth of the productions for the whole number, give a loss of 17,972 
bales out of 71,600, or 25.1 per cent, of injury. For the remaining four- 
fifths, or 403,000 bales, 15 per cent, is a high average. Making 60,450, or 
a total for the State of 78,422 bales out of 474,600, and a loss in value 
equal to $3,921,000. 

For Mississippi the percentage of loss for the whole State is 17, or 
123,000 bales, out of an average crop of 760,000. Here the figures show 
24 per cent, as the loss for a little over a third of the State, in counties 
of heaviest production, with 15 per cent, for the remaining two-thirds. 
Total loss, $0,150,000. 

In making the calculations for Louisiana, where there has been a 
greater increase in cotton production for a number of years past, the 
figures of the Ninth Census must be raised about two-fifths, instead of 

* Report of the Statistician, p. 120. See, also, map facing title page. 



SUMMARY OF LOSSES. 69 

one-fourth, to get a proper average. This gives 438,700 bales as the en- 
tire crop of the State, and the total average loss for all counties is placed 
at 20 per cent., a noticeable increase over those States lying to the east- 
ward, or 89,740 bales, worth $4,487,000. 

The height of cotton-worm devastation culminates in Texas, 28 per 
cent, representing the loss for the whole State. In 18 counties, growing 
about two-fifths of the cotton i)roduced, the percentage of loss is 35 per 
cent., or more than a third, with 20 i)er cent, for the remainiug two-thirds. 
Cotton production has increased to a still greater extent here than in other 
States since 1869, and one-half must be added to the census figures which 
gives, in round numbers, 525,000 bales as a fair average for 14 years, and 
28 per cent, places the loss for the State at 198,125 bales. Texas then suf- 
fers in a fear of greatest injury, a loss of at least 25,000 bales more than 
any other single State; and the sum total foots uj) $7,406,000. 

Florida must take the lowest rank in the amount of cotton produced, 
yet her percentage of destruction by worms must be rated between that 
of Louisiana and Texas, or at 24 per cent. Out of an annual production 
(average) of 49,739 bales, the devastation amounts to 12,000 bales, re- 
ducing the money value of the crop $600,000. 

In the northern tier of cotton States the losses are small. In North 
Carolina it is a question if the injury is not more than compensated in 
the benefit derived from the stripi)ing of the leaves where the vegetation 
is rank and the plants are nnable to mature the bolls. As all the evi- 
dence is on the side of benefit we shall leave the State out of the calcu- 
lation, as the injury can be but a trifle at the most. 

In South Carolina, Tennessee, and Arkansas the losses are small from 
the attacks of cotton-worms, although there are other causes that some- 
times operate unfavorabl.y against the crops. After a careful considera- 
tion of the damage in these States, the percentages are set down as fol- 
lows : South Carolina, 5 i)er cent., or 11,225 bales out of a crop of 224,500 
bales ; loss, $560,000. Tennessee, 5 per cent., or 8,365 bales out of a 
crop of 147,300; loss, $418,000. Arkansas, 8 per cent., or 27,760 bales 
out of a crop of 347,000; loss, $1,380,000. 

SUMMARY. 

Any causes tending to retard the growth of the cotton plants only 
make the destruction of a larger j^ercentage of the crop more certain in 
unfavorable cotton-worm years. On the contrarj^, upon those planta- 
tions where an early stand is secured, and everything is pushed from 
the start, with exemption from other causes of injury, only a small pro- 
portion of the crop is destroyed. 

Locality, too, has much to do with increasing the percentages of loss. 
In localities of heaviest production, where the plantations are large and 
are near together, should the season be a little earlier, the losses are 
almost double those in more isolated regions, and even in the same coun- 
ties location has much to do with raising or lowering the percentages. 



70 



EEPOKT UPON COTTON INSECTS. 



From the few extracts given it is shown that in years of severe injury 
33, 50, 75, or even 98 per cent, of the entire crop may be destroyed upon 
some plantations, while others escape with trilling injury. In the States 
lying to the extreme southward, as Florida and Texas, we find the highest 
percentages of loss ; and only a little lower rate for the cotton belt, 
where the ratio of loss increases from east to west, commencing with 
Georgia at 16 per cent., and ending with Texas at 28 per cent. In the 
northern tier of States the percentages are shown to be very low, North 
Carolina planters generally believing the worm to be a blessing rather 
than a curse, by removing superabundant foliage. 

The method of estimating the amounts of loss for each State has been 
fully exjjlained, and the figures presented both for number of bales and 
money value ; it now only remains to present these figures in tabular 
form, and the whole subject is before the reader in the most available 
shape tor study or perusal. 



States. 



Percentages of loss for 
worst years. 



> ?, 



-§(s.a 






South Carolina. 

Georgia 

Flovifla 

Alabama 

Mississippi . . . . 

Louisiana 

Texas 

Arkansas 

Tennessee 



25.2 
24 



12.5 
15 



5 
16.5 
24 
17.8 
17 
20 
28 



Total. 



224, 500 
474, GOO 
49, 700 
536, 700 
706, 000 
4.38, 700 
525, 000 
347, 000 
147, 000 



11, 225 
78, 422 

12, 000 
95, 790 

123, 070 
89, 740 

148, 125 

27, 700 

8,365 



$560, 000 

3, 912, 000 
GOO, 000 

4, 789, 000 
6, 150, 000 
4, 487, 000 
7, 400, 000 
1, 380, 000 

418, 000 



3,449,200 I 594,497 



29, 711, 000 



The terms "highest" and "lowest," in the columns devoted to per- 
centage of loss, do not refer to the greatest amount of injury, or the re- 
verse, inflicted in ipdividual localities, but to a general average for the 
principal counties of heaviest production on the one hand, on the average 
for the remainder of the State on the other. The average for the State 
as a whole appears in the third column. 

The result shows a possible loss of $30,000,000 in years of general 
prevalence of the worm, and, as these visitations are becoming more 
frequent, it is probable that the real losses from the cotton caterpillar 
are equivalent to an average of $15,000,000 to $20,000,000 annuaUy for 
the entire period since the war. There is much evidence also to show 
that the losses were equally disastrous ])r\oT to 1861. 

It should be stated that Virginia, the Indian Territory, and some other 
States, produce a small amount of cotton, which, with the productions 
of North Carolina, are not included in the above figures. It should also 
be borne in mind that while the quantities are assumed as State aver- 
ages for the period since the war, they are approximately correct, suffi- 
ciently so for the purposes of this exjiosition. 



THE COTTON- WORM IN OTHER COUNTRIES. 71 

Fifty dollars has been assumed as the price of a bale of cottou, though 
an average of fourteen years would raise these figures considerably. 
The plantation prices, from 1805 to 1870, ranged from 40 cents per i)ound 
down to 12 cents; or, per bale, from $180 to $00; and cotton is now sold 
upon the plantation at $10. Our estimate, therefore, of $50 per bale, 
is only an average for the last eight years. 

Of course the percentage of loss, as given in the i^receding pages, 
cannot be demonstrated beyond possibility of cavil ; the aim has been to 
make them too low, rather than a possible exaggeration. 

THE COTTON- WORM IN OTHER COUNTRIES. 

As would be inferred from the discussion at the beginning of this chap- 
ter, the larva of Aletia argillacea attacks cotton only in the cotton-grow- 
ing regions of IsTorth and South America and in the intervening 
islands. There was, indeed, a rumor that went the rounds of the i^ress 
some years ago to the effect that the cotton- worm had made its appear- 
ance in Egypt shortly after an importation of American seed, but inves- 
tigation proved it to be false. India, America's greatest competitor in 
cotton culture, has a destructive cotton enemy in the shape of a holl- 
worm, differing greatly, however, from our boll- worm, but equally des- 
tructive. * 

The cotton crop in Australia is injured by the cotton-bug (allied to 
the " red bug " of the Bahamas and Florida) ; in Greece, the cut- worms 
injure the young crop ; in Italy and in Sicily larvae of several species 
injure the growing plant, and in other cotton-growing countries local 
insect enemies are found ; but all of these countries are blessed with im- 
munity from the ravages of the American cotton- worm. 

Of the extent of its injuries in the West Indies, in the latter part of 
the last century, some idea has abeady been given. In the Bahamas 
the cotton-worm was injurious every year, from the time where we left 
it up to 1834, when the emancipation of the slaxes took place and put 
an end to cotton culture. The insects were to be seen the whole year 
round, but were less numerous after the stormy season, which is in Sep- 
tember and October, and most numerous just before the beginning of the 
gales. In general, Aletia was not considered by the natives as a serious 
enemy to the cotton plant, as the damage done by it was always small 
compared to that done by the " cotton-bug" {Dysdercus suturellus, H. Schf). 
Upon the breaking out of the civil war in the United States, cotton culture 
recommenced in the Bahamas with great activity, and upon the close of 
the war again decreased. Long Island and Exuma being the only islands 
pursuing its cultivation at present. All inhabitants unite in saying that 
Aletia has not been seen since a great hurricane which took place in 

*Tlie larva, of Depressaria gossypiella Saunders, iJicidentally mentioned in chapter I. 
The moth, which is a small Tineid, lays the egg in the blossom, and the young larva 
mines in the forming seed, preventing the maturing of the boll. One-fourth of the 
crop is frequently lost from the ravages of this insect. 



72 REPORT UPON COTTON INSECTS. 

1866, and Mr. Schwarz was unable to find a trace of tlie insect in any of 
its stages.* 

In Cuba, no cotton lias been grown for fifty years or more, except a 
very small quantity at tlie southeast end of the island, and an occa- 
sional plant for medicinal purposes. Many of the j)resent inhabitants 
do not know the reason for this, and many Americans traveling in Cuba 
have expressed their surjirise that cotton is not cultivated with such 
evident advantages in the way of soil and climate. J. P. Guarch6, 
United States consul at Matanzas, writing to the Department of Agri- 
culture in 1855, explains this as follows : 

Thirty-five or forty years ago attempts were made by emigrants from the United 
States, hut with little or no success ; and since that time the gradual rise in the cost 
of labor here and the gradual depression in its value in our own country have deterred 
the most sanguine from the prosecution of this branch of industry. Labor and capital 
always seek their highest reward, which no doubt will continue to be found in 
the cultivation of sugar-cane and tobacco, for which this island is so admirably 
adapted. Another obstacle also exists in the fact that the soil generates a worm which 
attacks the cotton plant and destroys the greater part of the crop almost every year. 
This worm is said to infest the plantations of our Southern States, but its ravages there 
are represented to be trifling in comparison with what they are here. 

In the neighboring island of San Domingo the state of things is not 
nearly so bad. Cotton has there been grown almost since the first set- 
tlement of the island, and is now an important article of export. The 
cotton-worm has always been known as one of the . drawbacks to the 
crop, but never as a remarkably serious one, and in the other islands 
which export cotton at present (Porto Rico, Trinidad, Barbuda, Mar- 
tinique, and Guadaloupe) the same can be said; As stated in the 
beginning of this chapter, however, on more than one island the culture 
of cotton has been entirely abandoned from the attacks of this insect. 

In Mexico the principal cotton-growing regions are the vicinities of 
Vera Cruz, Matamoros, Monclova, Santiago, Colinm, and Acapulco. It 
is entirely for domestic purposes, however. We have heard of the cot- 
ton-worm from Matamoros and Monclova, close to the Texan border, in 
times gone by, and also along the Gulf coast of Vera Cruz. As to its 
occurrence on the western coast of Mexico we have no data whatsoever. 

In British Guiana cotton culture was begun in 1752 and continued 
until 1838, when it had dwindled to a very small industry, partly owing 
to the ravages of the chenille. Dr. Chisholm's observations t in 1801 
and 1802, of which we have already spoken, are the fullest which we 
have found upon the cotton-worm in South America, and from them we 
jquote the following : 

One of the most singular circumstances respecting this species of the Phalena is the 
uncommonly fragrant smell which issues from the plant on which it feeds, although 
neither the animal itself nor the plant is possessed of the fragrance sejjarately. * * * 
So powerful is the odor produced by the ravages of this caterpillar that it may be 
perceived more than a hundred yards from the plant. A whole year may sometimes 

* See Appendix I, Report of E. A. Schwarz (preliminary), 
t Brewster's Edinburgh Encylopedia, article Cotton. 



THE COTTON WOKM IN GUIANA. 73 

occur without any appearance of the chenille; and, notwithstanding this, the year 
immediately following may be marked by the most extensive proofs of its voracity. 
* * * .A curious observ^ation relative to the history of the cotton-moth and cater- 
pillar is the rapidity with which it carries its ravages to distinct and even distant 
fields of the plantation. We should be inclined to imagine that the wind has much 
agency in spreading its destructive progeny ; for in the course of a single night whole 
fields, consisting of from four to ten acres, hitherto unmolested, have been devoured by 
them. Or does this proceed from the flight of myriads of the insect in its perfect 
state to distant fields and then depositing their eggs, whose fecimdation is quick- 
ened by the fostering heat of a favorable season, and thus giving rise to those sudden 
and astounding colonizations. That the leaves of cotton are the nidi as well as the 
food of the chenille is evident from the operations of the caterpillar when preparing 
for its change to the pupa state. By means of a thready substance, resembling a 
spider's web, of a white color, the leaf which the larva intended for the scene of its 
transformations is drawn together so as to form a funnel-shaped fold, close at the 
edges, and shut up at the broadest part or base. The pupa is inclosed in a covering 
of the thready substance, and acquires its i)erfect form or image at the expiration of 
nine days. * * * 

Immediately after dusk, in those seasons which are unfavorable to their propaga- 
tion, myriads approach the candles and are very troublesome, but soon terminate their 
existence in its flame. The period of their existence, when not destroyed by such 
causes, is about nine days ; and the whole life of the insect, including all its trans- 
formations from the ovum to the death of the moth, is about twenty-seven days. In 
the pupa state this insect is subjected to the rapacity of several other insects. Those 
I have more particularly observed are a small species of apterous bug, I believe the 
Ciniex grylloides, and the common red ant. These are often found in the hollow folded 
leaf, having the means of disengaging themselves from it by a cylindrical passage 
penetrating to the helpless pupa, of which, when these insects infest it, nothing remains 
but the shell or coriaceous coat. * * * The evolutions of the larvie and the transforma- 
tions and the death of the insect, or the api)earauce and disappearance of the chenille, are 
certainly regulated by parti cular states of the atmosphere and by the phases or changes 
of the moon. The chenille or larva of the cotton-moth generally appears in years 
favoring the fecundation of its ova, in July or August, a few days before the new moon ; 
increases during the increase of the moon, and neaiiy about the full moon begins to 
disapiiear, and soon after ceases altogether. Happily for the planter, however, this 
happens only every second or third year. But in years uncommonly favorable, the 
chenille appears and disappears ei-ery month from Jnly to October, and afterwards from 
the middle of January to the beginning of March. * * * 

Although the planters anathematize this destructive insect with all the vinilence of 
Ernuli>hus, it does not seem that anything effectual has been attempted to prevent or 
destroy the evil. * « * ^ prudent, economical planter will increase the brood of 
every species of domestic poultry, particularly turkeys ; for this has a tendency to 
diminish the brood of the chenille in a very great degree, while profit arises from the 
augmentation of useful stock. Turkeys are observed to have a remarkable appetite 
for the larvie of the cotton-moth, and devour prodigious quantities of them. But 
the most useful and natural enemy of the chenille is the bird called in the colony 
Chenille bird (the black and yellow Manakyn of Edwards, or the Pipea aureola of Lin- 
naius), and the Certhia familiaris, or house wren, and the Pai-us nigrusoi Linn., men- 
tioned by Dr. Bancroft (Nat. Hist, of Guiana, p. 182). The former of these appears 
on the coast with the chenille, and the flocks are numerous iniiroportiontothe insect," 
«fec. 

We also learn from Dr. Ure,* in 1835, that the chenille was the most 
prominent enemy to the cotton plant in British Gniana. 
In Dntch Guiana cotton culture began in 1706, and considerable 

* Cotton Manufacture, I, 174. 



74 REPORT UPON COTTON INSECTS. 

cotton is still exported. The chenille has always been very destructive, 
and is ranked as the most injurious foe to the crop. Mr. F. W. Cragin, 
United States consul at Paramaribo, in writing to the Department of 
Agriculture, in 1856, speaks of the chenille as Koctua xylina, Say. 

Brazil has grown cotton for many years. Concerning the appearance 
of the cotton-worm in the more northern cotton-growing provinces 
there can be little doubt, from their contiguity to Guiana. Farther 
south, the original Aletia argillacea came from Bahia. We find an inter- 
esting letter on the occurrence of the insect in the more southern prov- 
ince of Sao Paulo in Professor Willet's report.* Professor Willet says : 

Dr. E. L. Mclntyre, of Thomasville, Ga., writes: " I settled in the province of Sao 
Paulo, Brazil, in the year ISGfi, and remained there eight years and a half. The cul- 
tivation of cotton was of recent date then, and they were planting their fourth crop 
when I arrived. Prior to the year 1863 there had been some cotton planted in the 
country, perhaps of an indigenous variety, but no one had ever observed a cotton- 
worm, and I believe they had never existed there, t In 1862 the price of cotton offer- 
ing great inducements to Brazilian farmers they sought to i)rocure seeds, but none 
coukl be had, and I am informed the seed then being used was brought from New 
Orleans. The first year no caterpillars were seen, but after the second they com- 
menced to eat the leaves, and had increased to such an extent that when I moved 
from there the cultivation of cotton was nearly abandoned. 

Concerning the appearance of Aletia in the other South American 
countries which export cotton — Venezuela and Peru, and in those coun- 
tries in which it is cultivated simjily for domestic purposes, United 
States of Colombia, Ecuador, Boli^ia, and Argentine Kepublic — we 
regret having no data whatsoever. 

* Appendix I, Report of J. E. Willet. 
t Undoubtedly an incorrect inference. 



CHAPTEE III. 

HABITS AND NATURAL HISTORY. 

Much has been written respecting the habits and natural history of the 
cotton- worm, but the greater part of these writings have appeared in 
agricultural journals of limited circulation. In many instances this can 
hardly be deemed a misfortune, for the germs of truth contained in the 
accounts of this insect are, in most cases, accompanied by a great amount 
of error. It is very strange that so few writers should have made and 
recorded careful observations on a pest whose ravages have been so 
great and long continued. 

A few observers, however, have carefuUy studied the insect and pub- 
hshed accounts which, in the main, are accurate. The most important 
of these writings are those of Professor Glover, Mr. Affleck, and Doctor 
Phares. A complete list of the writings consulted in the preparation 
of this report is given elsewhere.* 

Although the published accounts have been carefully studied prepar- 
atory to writing this chapter, the facts herein recorded are, unless oth- 
erwise stated, the result of observations made during the seasons of 
1878 and 1879. Care has been taken to verify even those facts which 
have already been generally received. To the general reader some of 
the points which are discussed in detail will doubtless seem trivial ; but 
in deciding what is the best mode of combating this pest these very 
points are often among those which become most imxjortant. 

THE EGa. 

In this stage of its existence the cotton-worm is known to but few 
people, both its color and size shielding it from the observation of un- 
trained eyes. Every cotton planter should, however, not only become 
familiar with the appearance of the egg but know just where to look 
for it. With this knowledge time may be gained, the loss of which in 
the application of remedies may result disastrously. As it is now, the 
worms are rarely observed until nearly full grown, and then but little 
time remains for the protection of the crop. 

The egg is circular, much flattened, and ribbed ; its greatest diameter 
is a little more than one fortieth of an inch (.685"^"); its form is shown 
in Fig. 1. When first laid the egg is of a beautiful bluish-green color ; 
this changes to a dirty white before it hatches. 

Owing to the fact that the tender foliage at the top of the plant is 
* See chapter IX — Bibliography. 





76 REPORT UPON COTTON INSECTS. 

first destroyed by the cotton- worm, it is generally believed by planters 
that the greater number, if not all, the eggs are laid ujion that part of the 

plant. This belief gave rise to the practice 
which has been carried on in some localities, 
of cutting off and destroying the terminal 
shoots of the plant ; the planters thinking 
that in this "way the eggs would be destroyed 
and the crop saved. This idea I found to 
be an erroneous one. Karely eggs may be 
found on any part of the plant above ground, 
but almost invariably they are deposited on 
the lower surface of the larger leaves, and 
by far the gTeater number of them are to be 
found on the middle third of the plant.* 

The eggs are deposited singly, and 1 rarely 
found more than four or five upon a single 
°' ' leaf, even when the moths were most abun- 

dant; still they sometimes occur in greater numbers. The duration of 
the insect in this state varies greatly, depending upon the season. Dur- 
ing the warmer part of the summer months the eggs hatch in little more 
than two days after they are deposited, but in the autumn they may re- 
main nearly a week before the larvae issue. 

THE LARVA. 

Some time before the larva issues, it can be seen through the trans 
parent shell of the Qgg, the eyes, mandibles, and Y-shaped suture separat- 
ing the epicrauium from tlie clypeus beiug especially prominent. A few 
hours later, after repeated efforts, which are plainly visible with a micro- 
scope, the larva succeeds in breaking a hole through one side of the 
shell, and it soon eats its way out. Occasioually the larva, as soon as it 
emerges, eats a i^ortion of the egg-shell ; usually, however, the shell is 
left undisturbed. 

The newly hatched larva is of a very pale green color, or white with 
a faint tinge of green ; the head is pale yellow, with no trace of the black 
piliferous spots which are so conspicuous in the later stages ; the ocelli 
are black ; the piliferous spots of the body are at first quite indistinct, 
but soon become more prominent ; the thoracic legs and the third and 
fourth pairs of abdominal legs are very long ; the first and second pairs 
of abdominal legs are mere tubercles. 

The young larva usually remains on the lower surface of the leaf upon 
which the egg was deposited, feeding upon the more tender portions and 
leaving the upper cuticle unbroken. Sometimes, however, small larvae 
which evidently have been hatched recently are found on leaves where 
no signs of egg-shells can be detected, while shells but no larvae are 

* For a detailed discussion of this point and of the number of eggs upon each leaf, 
see Appendix I, report of W. Trelease. 



HABITS OF YOUNG LARVAE. 



77 



found on larger leaves just below these. Yet I believe that the larvae 
always feed a little before leaving the leaf on which they were born. 
The young larva does not eat entirely through the leaf until it is nearly 
two days old, and often not until the fourth day after it leaves the egg. 
Thus the earliest indication of the presence of the worms is numerous, 
small, semi-transparent spots upon the larger leaves. The smallest lar- 
vae which I found eatiug through a leaf in the field measui"ed from 
five-sixteenths to three-eighths inch in length (8"™ to 9.5™™). In con- 
finement the newly-hatched larvae eat the upper surface or lower surface 
of the leaf according as they happen to be on one side or the other but 
do not perforate the leaf till two to four days old. The injury done to 
the cotton during this early part of the life of the larvae is inconsiderable. 

The young larvae are extremely active. Their first and second pairs 
of abdominal legs being functionless, they resemble in their mode of 
locomotion the true measuring- worms ( Geometridae) even more than do 
the full-grown larvae. When disturbed they drop from their resting 
place by means of a silken thread ; frequently they climb back again in 
the way commonly employed by spinning caterpillars, which is to bend 
the head down to one side, and catch hold of the thread with the anterior 
pair of legs, then, supporting the body by these legs, seize the thread 
again with the jaws at as high a point as possible; this act is repeated 
until the larva regains its place. " It sometimes happens that a larva in 
moving about encounters one of these silken threads extending from one 
j)oint of support to another ; in such a case the larva is able to walk 
along this thread with its ordinary looping motion, as if walking along 
the lower siu-face of a twig. The abdominal legs are obviously fitted for 
clasping any small object; but it is not until we examine the thoracic 
legs with a microscope 
that we can see how well 
adapted they, too, are for 
this purpose. 

In Fig. 2, a represents 
the terminal portion of the 
leg of a young larva, and 
h and c represent the claws 
of a full-grown larva. It 
will be seen that in each 
case there is a piece 
shaped something like 
thehoof of a horse, which, 
acting with the true claw, forms a very efiScient clasping organ. In the 
young larva there is a curious fan-shaped appendage (Fig. 2, a a) at- 
tached near the base of the claw, the function of which we failed to dis- 
cover. This appendage is present in the fullgrown larva ; but here it 
loses its peculiar form, becoming long aiid narrow. 

Observations made in the field during the month of August indicate 




Fig. 2. 



78 EEPORT UPON COTTON INSECTS. 

that, as a rule, this insect lives at that season thirteen days as a larva, 
before webbing up, and remains as a larva one day after this, before 
changing to a pupa. Occasionally, two days elapse between the web- 
bing up and the change to pupa. Specimens which were kept in breed- 
ing-cages in my office remained eighteen days in the larval state. This 
unusually long time was probably due to the fact that the temperature 
of the room in which they were kept was much lower than that in the 
cotton-fields. Specimens bred by Professor Glover under similar circum- 
stances passed twenty days before webbing up.* 

The larva sheds its skin five times during the period of its growth. 
The individuals which I bred moulted at regular intervals of three days, 
the first moult being made when the larvae were three days old. At 
this moult nearly all the larvae ate their shed skins. During the first 
stage the head of the larva is marked only by the six black eyes on either 
side. After the first moult the conspicuous black spots on the head 
appear. When six days old the larvse moulted the second time, and 
when nine days old the third moult occurred. At this moult the larvae 
began to vary in color ; some becoming striped with black, and others 
remaining green. On the twelfth day the fourth moult occurred, and 
the fifth moult on the fifteenth day. Three days later the larvae webbed 
up. When full grown the larva measures If inches in length. A de- 
tailed description of the full-grown larva is appended to this section. 

The variation in color referred to above is quite interesting ; no expla- 
nation of it has been discovered. I found by experiment that the dis- 
tinction is not a sexual one, as moths of each sex were bred from each 
kind of larvae. General observations, that is, those made without abso- 
lutely counting the individuals of each color, show that there are no 
dark larvne in either the first or second broods. About one-fourth, or 
less, of the third brood are striped with black. About one-half, or 
slightly more, of the fourth brood are dark, many of them being almost 
entirely black; while nearly all of the fifth brood, "third crop" of the 
planters, are black or very darkly striped. 

After the larvae become large enough to eat through the leaves, or, in 
the language of the pLanter, ''to rag the cotton," they move to the top of 
the plant and destroy the tender terminal foliage; thus the earliest indi- 
cation usually observed of the presence of the worms is the "ragging" 
of the tops of the plants. As already stated, this has led to the practice 
of " topping" the cotton. 

In feeding, the worms rest upon either the upper or lower surface of 
the leaf, but more frequently upon the latter. They eat most early in 
the morning and late in the evening. As we have frequently observed 
with other cateri^illars, the cotton worm may often be seen resting upon 
some portion of the plant, supporting itself by its prolegs and swinging 
the anterior part of its body from side to side as if fanning itself. The 
larva has another interesting habit. When touched or otherwise fright- 

* Agricultural Report, 1855, p 75. 



HABITS OF LARVAE. 79 

ened, or sometimes when it wishes to move to another part of the plant, 
it suddenly throws itself by a jerking motion into the air. I have care- 
fully studied this mode of jumping. It is as follows : The larva clings 
to its support by its three posterior pairs of prolegs; it swings the an- 
terior part of its body to one side, and then, rapidly moving it to the other, 
lets go at the proper moment; the momentum of the anterior part of the 
body is sufficient, to carry the whole body some distance. In this way a 
larva can jump two feet in a horizontal direction. They will often spring 
from the highest part of the cotton plant and faU to the ground. On 
one occasion (August 26) I was in a field where the plants were nearly 
stripped of their leaves at the top; the larvae were moving to the lower 
leaves. I saw none crawling down the stalks. All, so far as observed, 
performed the journey by jumping. They rarely fail to alight upon their 
feet and cling to the object touched. Not one in fifty strikes one leaf 
and falls to another before getting hold with the hooks with which the 
prolegs are furnished. Many, springing too far from the plant, would 
touch no leaf and thus fall to the ground. This larva does not seem 
able to cling by its true legs, and, by swinging the posterior part of the 
body, jump. When I press upon the head of the insect with a stick or 
pencil, it seems unable to jump unless it can first withdraw its head. 
But if the pencil be put on the posterior part of the larva, it will jerk the 
anterior portion of the body so violently as to pull itself from beneath 
the pencil. I have been unable to find any silk connecting the larva 
with the object from which it springs ; and I am of the opinion that in 
jumping it does not spin a thread. 

I did not observe a single instance of systematic marching, as is indi- 
cated by the popular name army- worm, which has been so generally 
applied to this species. I saw on several occasions immense numbers 
of the larvae on the ground, crawling in all directions in search of food or 
places in which to transform. And on one occasion (August 20) I saw 
myriads of the worms of different sizes crawling in all directions over the 
ground, when there was plenty of food and places in which to transform 
on the plants, as not more than one-third of the foliage had been eaten. 
This was the time when I observed so many larvae springing from the 
stripped upper portions of the plant to the leaves below ; perhaps most 
of the worms on the ground were those which, in jumping, had failed 
to alight on the lower leaves. I visited the field at night to ascertain if 
the marching was kept up at that time. I found none crawling over 
the ground, and nearly all those on the plants were perfectly at rest. 

When the larvae are feeding on the cotton in great numbers there 
arises a peculiar sweetish odor, which, although not easy to describe, is 
very characteristic. This odor, I supposed, proceeded from the excre- 
ment of the larvae ; but Mr. Trelease is of the opinion that it is " due 
partially to the crushing of the leaves by so many mandibles." In any 
case this odor is perceptible only when the larvae are present in great 
numbers. The fact that many planters say that they can smell the 



80 EEPORT UPON COTTON INSECTS. 

worms sooner than tliey can find tliem otherwise is very strong evidence 
of the lack of proper knowledge of the habits of this species. 

Many i^lanters believe that the cotton- worm will only eat the cotton 
after it has reached a certain stage of maturity. They have been led to 
this conclusion chiefly owing to the fact that the early broods of the 
worm consist of so few individuals that they usually escape observa- 
tion. Other facts which have led to this belief are not so easily ex- 
plained. It is sometimes observed that certain cotton-plants are left 
untouched while other and older cotton growing near is entirely de- 
stroyed. An instance of this came under my personal observation. In 
a field where the cotton- worms were very abundant and had destroyed 
two-thirds of the foliage, I observed that along a ditch through this field 
the cotton was green and very little eaten. On inquiry, I learned that 
this cotton had been i)lanted a month later than that in the remainder 
of the field, as the cotton first planted along the sides ofthe ditch had been 
washed away. It may be that the nectar glands, which will be dis- 
cussed later, were not so active on the younger plants as on the older 
ones ; and hence the moths, not being attracted to these plants, did not 
oviposit on them. It should be noted, however, that when this obser- 
vation was made (August 20) the younger plants were as large as those 
planted earlier in the season ; and I can see no reason why the nectar 
glands on these should not have been as active as those on the older 
lilants. Had facts which were discovered later in the season been 
known at that time, this point would probably have been cleared up. 

It has been often remarked that the worms will not eat cotton which 
is affected with rust. The reason usually assigned is that the leaves 
are not suitable food. Although, doubtless, larvae would not thrive so 
so well on such plants, is it not probable that less eggs are laid upon 
them owing to the small amount of nectar secreted by them 1 

Although, as a rule, the cotton- worm feeds only on the leaves of the 
cotton plant, it is occasionally found lying within the open flowers feed- 
ing upon the stamens. It also frequently desiroys the buds and small 
bolls. This is the case when the plant is stripped of its foliage. ' I have 
also seen many buds and bolls destroyed when the foliage on the lower 
third of the plants was eaten but little. When a cotton-worm destroys 
a boll, it does not, like the boll- worm, merely eat out its contents, but 
often eats the greater part of the pod also. 

From what has been learned respecting the time required for the full 
development of the larva, and the small amount of injury done during 
its early stages, it can be seen that the accounts which are often heard 
respecting the short time which elapses from the first appearance of the 
worms to the complete destruction of the crop arc founded on an error. 
We have heard many accounts of instances where fields had been 
attacked by cotton-worms and destroyed within three days! If by 
"first appearance" one understands the earliest time at which a brood 
of cotton-worms has been developed of sufficient size, both as to indi- 



OTHER FOOD PLANTS. 81 

viduals and numbers, to be easily seen, these accounts will not convey a 
wrong impression. For example, a i)lanter informed the writer, in 
reply to questions respecting a certain tield, that the worms first appeared 
in it three days previous. It was a field adjoining his residence, through 
which he passed every day, and was one to which, as he informed me, he 
had paid special attention. On visiting the field I found it very badly 
infested with cotton-worms which were then two-thirds grown, and hence 
must have been more than three days old.* 

Although observers may fall into error respecting the time required 
for the devastation of a field of cotton by this pest, exaggeration is 
hardly possible respecting the completeness of the destruction which 
sometimes occurs. We have repeatedly seen places in which the plants 
were so completely stripped of their foliage that there were not left as 
many uneaten leaves as there were stalks, a few dried and brown leaves 
on the lower part of the plants being the only semblance of foliage left 
on what, ten days previous, was a beautiful green field. In cases of 
this kind, not only are all the green leaves eaten, but the young bolls 
are also destroyed, and often the bark is gnawed from the small branches. 

The stopping of the growth of the plant is not the ouly loss which the 
destruction of the foliage entails. Open cotton is frequently injured by 
the dropping of the excrement of the larvae upon it. Much injury also 
results from the premature oi^eniug of the bolls, caused by the destruc- 
tion of the foliage. Not only is such cotton of inferior quality, but when, 
in addition to the fully-developed bolls, many immature ones are made 
to open, it is often impossible for the planters to pick the cotton before 
much of it falls out upon the ground and is thus seriously damaged. 
Immense losses sometimes occur in this way, when wind and rain closely 
follow the destruction of the foliage by the worms. 

On the other hand, in some parts of the cotton belt — notably the more 
northern sections — the advent of the cotton- worm is not dreaded. It 
rarely reaches these regions till late in the season, and then the planters 
consider the destruction of the foliage a benefit rather than otherwise, 
as in this way the maturity of youug bolls, which would otherwise be 
destroyed by frost, is hastened. Sometimes, even in southern portions 
of the cotton belt, in localities where the i>lant grows very rank if the 
worms do not appear early, the destruction of the leaves late in the sea- 
son is regarded as a source of profit. 

No well authenticated instance is recorded of the cotton-worm feed- 
ing upon any plant except cotton.t Many experiments were tried to 

* We have seen that the time required for the cotton-worm to attain ita growth 
varies greatly, depending upon temperature. Hence it may be possible that under 
unusual conditions ix brood of worms might be developed so rapidly that they would 
strip a tield in a few days after their first appearance. Still, under ordinary circum- 
stances, this Avould not be the case. 

t P. Winlfree, De Bow's Review, iv, 251 (1847), says : " In the West Indies they feed 
promiscuously on the leaves of a plant there called the salve-bush ; this plant grows 
about the height and its leaves are a good deal like the mullein of this country, having 
a whitish color and a soft velvety feeling." 
6 I 



82 EEPORT UPOX COTTON INSECTS. 

induce them to feed upon other plants, all resulting- negatively. Even 
when the larvae were placed upon plants closelj- allied to cotton they 
starved. Still there is reason to believe, as will be shown later, that 
another food-plant exists in Wisconsin at least. 

When full grown, the larva folds one edge of a leaf over its body and 
fastens it down with yellowish silk. It then spins a delicate cocoon about 
itself. At times, when the cotton- worms are very numerous, it frequently 
occurs that the foliage is so badly eaten that is with difficulty that the 
worms tind a leaf in which to web up. Their endeavors to conceal their 
bodies before pupating are at such times very amusing. The merest 
fragment of a leaf is called into service ; and frequently very vigorous 
struggles ensue betweeu rivals endeavoring to secure the same place. 
Often, too, the trouble of the successful competitor does not end with his 
webbing np. Other larvae not yet fully grown, finding this remnant of a 
a leaf, devour it, exposing the pupa, which either falls to the ground or 
hangs suspended by some of the silken fiber which happens to be attached 
to the uneaten frame work of the leaf. A detailed descrii)tion of the larva 
is appended. This will serve to distinguish the cotton- worm from other 
larvae which are sometimes mistaken for it. 

Alexia argillacea, Hiibuer. 

Full-grown larva. 
. Length, If inches (41'""'). Color, light-green, striped with white and black, and 
Spotted with black and yellow; in many individuals, especially those of the earlier 
broods, the black stripes are wanting. Head, ochre-yellow, with thirty black spots, 
from each of which arises a short, stitf, black hair (13 a). Body, light-green, with dorsal 
line, two subdorsal lines, and lateral line white, and with numerous intensely black 
piliferous spots. The more conspicuous of these spots .are arranged as follows : Eight 
forming two transverse rows of four each on the dorsal part of the first body seg- 
ment (prothorax) ; a simple transverse row of four on each of the two following seg- 
ments (in these two rows the inner spots are much smaller than the outer ones) ; 
on each of the eight following segments (first to eighth abdominal), four spots, form- 
ing the angles of a square ; a row of spots on the lower subdorsal line, one spot on 
each segment; below these, three spots, forming a triangle. In the green varieties 
the piliferous spots are surrounded with white, and are thus rendered more conspicu- 
ous ; spiracles black. Usually a row of indistinct yellow spots upon and above the 
upper subdorsal line. All legs pale-green ; claws of thoracic legs black ; first pair of 
abdominal legs rudimentary ; second pair half as large as third pair. The distribution 
of black varies greatly in ditierent specimens. In some there are no black stripes, this 
color being almost entirely absent, excejit in the piliferous spots described above ; in 
other specimens all that part of the body above the lateral line, excepting the dorsal 
and subdorsal lines, is black. The following grades between these two extremes may- 
be found : 

a. Dorsal line bordered on eacb side with black ; varies in width in different speci- 
mens from those in which it is a mere line to those in which the eutirc spac(? l)etween 
the dorsal line and the upper subdorsal line is black. 

b. Similar to variety a, excej)t that the space between the subdorsal lines is also 
black. 

c. Similar to variety h, except that the space between the lateral line and the lower 
subdorsal line is more or less black. Autennte three jointed, basal joint large, fleshy; 
second joint about one-third the length of first joint, and often not visible, being with- 



THE PUPA. 83 

drawn into first joint ; third joint equal in length to the first and of a brown color. 
This joint bears at its outer extremity three conical tubercles, one of which is large, 
appearing like a subjoint, and bearing a small tubercle ; mandibles strong, pale, with 
their edges and teeth black ; teeth, four, rather dull. 

PUPA. 

After the larva lias formed its cocoon within a folded leaf, its body 
shortens and increases in diameter, assuming a somewhat fusiform shape. 
Those parts that were light green become bluish or copper color. After 
one or two days have elapsed the larva sheds its skin and becomes a 
pupa. 

This is at first of a delicate green color, but in a few hours it changes 
to a chestnut-brown, which sometimes becomes so dark as to be almost 
black. This change in color is attended by a toughening and hardening 
of the body walls. Frequently the head, thorax, and wing-sheaths be- 
come darker than the remaining portions of the body. The posterior 
third of the fourth, fifth, and sixth abdominal segments is much lighter 
in color than the remaining part of the seg- 
ments. When the pupa is much contracted, 
the lighter portion of each of these segments is 
covered by the following segment : The length 
of the pupa varies from five-eighths to thirteen- 
sixteenths inches (16'"™-20"'°>). Its form is 
shown on Plate I. The wing-sheaths nearly 
reach the fifth abdominal segment. The tip of 
the abdomen is furnished with four hooks A 

short distance in front there are four other p^^ 3 _End of pupa, above 
hooks, each one arising from a small pit. Fig. and below. 

3 represents two viewt of this part of the pupa, a the dorsal view, and h^ 
the ventral view. 

When a field is badly infested with cotton-worms they frequently eat 
the folded leaves containing pupse. Occasionally such i)upae remain 
suspended by their hooks and fragments of the cocoon attached to the 
remains of the leaf, as shown on Plate I. 

The duration of the pupa state varies greatly. During the warmer 
part of the summer it is only six or seven days, but in the autumn indi- 
viduals of this species have been known to remain a month in this state. 

THE ADULT. 

The size and appearance of the adult is represented on Plate I. The 
general color of the upper surface of the wings and body is light-brown. 
The anterior wings are tinged with wine-color on the inner and middle 
parts, shading into a light olive-green on the external portions. These 
wings are marked by several wavy transverse lines of a reddish color, 
and by a black or grayish spot near the center of each wing ; outer 
border fringed with white, with six reddish spots. These characters 




84 REPORT UPON COTTON INSECTS. 

will serve to distinguish this insect, but a more detailed description is 
appended to this section. 

Unlike the larva, the adult Aletia argillacea is not confined to a single 
article of food, the moths feeding upon sweets of many kinds. Although 
nectar forms a considerable part of this food, the moths seldom visit 
flowers for this substance. A few plants possess nectar glands in addi- ■ 
tion to those of the flowers, and it is from such plants that these moths 
obtain nectar. The cotton plant is one of this number, each leaf being 
furnished with from one to three nectar-secreting glands. Usually there 
is but one of these, which is situated on the lower surface of the main 
rib, near the petiole ; occasionally leaves can be found in which each of 
the three larger ribs is furnished with a gland. This gland appears to 
the naked eye as a swelling of the rib, in the center of which is a depres- 
sion containing usually a drop of clear, somewhat viscid, sweet fluid. 
When this fluid is not consumed by moths, ants, or other insects, it will 
accumulate so as to form a large drop projecting beyond the walls of 
the gland. Other glands, similar in appearance and function, are situ- 
ated, one at the base of each of the three bracts forming the involucre 
or " square," and sometimes also three additional glands at the bottom 
of the calyx alternating with these bracts. 

These glands were first figured by Professor Glover in his manuscript 
work on cotton. The leaf-gland is represented on Plate IX of that work, 
accompanied by the statement : " This is frequently filled with a sweet 
substance which proves verj* attractive to ants and other insects." The 
glands of the involucre are represented on at least six different plates j 
and on Plate XX especial attention is called to them. The explanation 
of the plate reads as follows : " One of the three glands on the outside 
of the involucre secreting a sweet, \'iscid substance much sought after 
by flies, ants, &c. This gland is sometimes pierced by insects, causing 
a different kind of rot." 

While in the field, during the summer of 1878, I became interested in 
these facts, which I afterwards learned had been observed long before 
by Professor Glover. When I informed Professor Riley of certain obser- 
vations that I had made, he suggested that perha])S the cotton-moth 
also derived nourishment from these glands. Subsequently, at Bacon- 
ton, we, in company with Professor Willet, went into the field at night 
with dark- lanterns to study this subject. .Within a half hour from the 
time we entered the field, I had the jjleasure of pointing out to Professor 
Riley a moth in the act of sipjung nectar from a gland at tlie base of a 
boll ; thus proving the truth of his inference. We also observed moths 
feeding at the heads of Paspalum hvre, a common grass growing as a 
weed in the cotton fields. Although no other moths were observed at 
that time to feed on the nectar of cotton, during the present season (1879) 
many observations have been made showing that it is the normal habit 
of this insect to do so. A few da.ys after the discovery of the moth feed- 
ing at the extra-floral nectar glands of the cotton, my host. Captain 
Bacon, informed me that as he was riding home in the evening from a 



NECTAR GLANDS. 85 

distant part of bis plantation he observed a large number of moths fly- 
ing about some cow-pea vines that were growing in a corn-field. I at 
once equipped myself with a lantern and proceeded to the corn-field. Un 
arriving there I witnessed a remarkable sight ; thousands of the cotton- 
moths were about the pea-vines feeding on the nectar excreted by a 
series of glands situated near the end of the peduncle which is produced 
beyond the last flower or pod. The moths were not at all shy, but 
would remain engrossed in i)artaking of their repast even when the 
lantern was brought within a few inches of them. In no instance were 
the moths seen to \asit the flower of the pea. 

It is probable that the cotton-moth feeds about nectar excreted by 
many other plants. Mr. Trelease observed it feeding at the ovate glands 
which are situated at the base of the petiole of the larger coffee weed 
{Cassia occidentalis). 

The subject of extra floral nectar glands is very interesting; and it is 
one which has been studied but little. The problems presented by it 
are quite puzzling. In the case of the nectar glands of flowers we have 
organs which, serving to attract bees and other insects, and thus in- 
suring cross-fertilization, are very useful to the plant. But the functions 
which extra floral nectar glands perform are seldom as obvious. In case 
of the cotton plant these glands serve to attract the moths and thus 
insure the oviposition of eggs upon it. Thus the plant upon which the 
glands are the most active will prove most attractive to the moths, and 
hence will be the one the most likely to be infested by worms. There- 
fore, instead of being beneficial, as we know the floral nectar-glands to 
be, the extra floral glands seem at first sight to be injurious to the 
plant. 

It was not until we learned that the small ants, so abundant in cotton 
fields and which are attracted to the plants by these glands, are the most 
efficient check upon the increase of cotton- worms that we understood 
how beneficial these glands really are. For, although the moths, led by 
instinct to oviposit only upon the food plant of their young, would 
visit the cotton plants ev^en if the glands were not present, it is not im- 
probable that the ants are first attracted to the plants by the supi^ly of 
nectar which they find there, and as this nectar is secreted by the very 
young plants the ants doubtless begin the destruction of cotton-worms 
as soon as they appear. The statement of Professor Riley that "these 
sweets are first produced when the plant begins to flower and fruit" 
(Annual Report Department of Agriculture, 1878, j). 215), was merely a 
conjecture which subsequent observations failed to confirm. In reality, 
glands were found on some cotyledons ; these, however, did not seem to 
secrete nectar; but the gland on the tirst leaf begins to secrete nectar 
(as indicated by the first visits of ants) about the time that the third or 
fourth leaf expands.* 

*Tlie bearing of this subject of uectar upon the subject of the euemies of the cotton- 
plant is so important that we have requested Mr. Trelease to prepare a paper upon it, 
■which will be found in Part III. 



S6 



REPORT UPON COTTON I^ SECTS. 



The cotton-moth is not confined to a diet of nectar, as many fruit- 
growers have learned to their cost. Frequently the fi^ crop is completely 
destroyed in some sections of the cotton belt, as is also the August crop 
of peaches. The moths have also been known to feed on apples, grapes, 
melons, and the jujube. A remarkable instance of their feeding on 
melons in Wisconsin was communicated to Professor Eiley last year ; 
we quote from a letter on file iu this department : 

Racixe, Wis., Xovembcr 17, 1878. 

Dear Sir : In a communication to the Scientific American you stated that the 
Aletia argiUacea bored into peaches in Kansas. In this connection it may not be un- 
interesting to state the following : Charles Jackson, 4 miles from Racine, raised large 
quantities of melons for market, mostly of the nutmeg variety. He complained tome 
that there was a miller that swarmed in his melon patch at night, aiul did much 
damage. I visited the locality at night, and discovered that it was the Aletia argiUacea, 
and that thej^ did literally swarm ; and wherever there was a ripe melon that had a 
slight crack on its surface, there the moths were sucking and crowding into the fruit; 
and in 1hat way they did considerable damage. This was on September 10, 1877. 
Last fall they were not so numerous, and did less damage. I noticed where the 
melons were perfectly sound they did not work. * * * 

P. R. HOY, M. D. 

C. V. Riley, Washington, D. C. 

Recently, at my request, Dr. Hoy sent to this dej^artment a specimen 
of a melon-eating moth, and it proves to be witliout doubt A/efia<n-/5ij7?a- 
cea. Dr. Hoy's observations are very interesting, not merely as illustrat- 
ing another mode in which this i)ernicious pest may be the source of 
serious annoyance, but also as bearing on the question of the migratory 
powers of the moth. We shall have occasion to refer to this again in 
another chapter. 

Although it appears from the letter of Dr. Hoy that tlie moths injured 
only those melons which were cracked, it is (certain tliat in the (;ase of 
figs, peaches, and grapes the moths have the power of piercing holes 
through the unbroken rind of the fruit, and thus of destroying fruit pre- 
viously uninjured. That a moth slioidd have this jioweris a remarkable 
fact. As a rule, butterflies and moths are only able to sip fluid sweets 
from open reservoirs, as the nectaries of flowers, the organ with which 
this is done being soft and flexible. 

While in the field last year 1 carefull,\- watched the operation of i)iei'c- 

iiig the skin of a peach. At 

times the moth used the tip 

of its maxilhe as if it were 

trying to prick a hole into the 

fruit ; at other times the tip 

of the maxillfe was incurved, 

.^^ -'..iiiS^ -"^^^F ^"^^ ^^^ dorsal surface thus 

^ ^ I^W presented to the peach used 

Fig. 4.— Maxillae of eottou-nioth. as a rasp. A study of the 

structure of the maxillse shows how well adapted they are for piercing 

and rasping. The tip of the organ is well adapted for piercing, as is 




DESTRUCTION OF FRUIT BY ALETIA. 



87 




shown by Fig. 4 ; and the portion immediately preceding tbe tip is 
equally well adapted for rasping, being furnished with numerous spines 
on the dorsal surface. The ventral surface of this ])art of the organ is 
is also provided with spines. 
Probably these are of little use 
in piercing the rind of fruit, but 
doubtless they aid much in en- 
larging a hole when it is once 
made, and also in lacerating 
the pulp of fruit, thus setting 
free the juice. Fig. 5 repre- 
sents a cross section of the max- Fig. 5.— Cross-sectiou of maxiJlac 
ilia?. The relation of all the parts is well shown, excepting the arrange- 
ment of the muscles which are within the walls of each maxilla. These 
muscles were torn in cutting the section.* 

Although many Lepidoptera may be found to possess the power of 
I)iercing the rinds of fruits when the subject is more carefully studied, 
as yet but few instances have been observed. The following is the most 
striking: An Australian moth {Ophideres fnUonica) is very destructive 
to oranges. This insect is furnished with maxillae similar to those of 
Aletia arfiiUacea, with which it is able to pierce the thick skin of the 
orange. Figures and careful descriptions of the structure of the maxillre 
of this orange-sucking moth have been published by M. Klinckel, Comptes 
Rendus, August 30, 1875, and Francis Darwin, Quarterly Journal Micro- 
scopical Science, 1875, p. 384. Mr. Darwin also states, on the authority 
of Mr. R. Trimen, Curator of the South African Museum, that at the 
Cape of Good Hoi^e a great deal of fruit is thus injured by Lepidoptera. 
Other instances of Lepidoptera piercing vegetable tissues for the pur- 
pose of obtaining the juices are given by the elder Darwin in his work 
on the fertilization of Orchids. 

Although there is no doubt respecting the ability of the moths to per- 
forate the rinds of fruit, it is evident that they will seldom do so if it 
can be avoided. Thus, when one moth has made a hole through the 
skin of a peach, others crowd around and make use of the same opening. 
I have observed seven moths making use of a single perforation at one 
"**■ time. In this way the juice of the peach is extracted, ordy a spongy 
mass being left. In feeding upon figs, however, the moths frequently, 
instead of making use of the natural opening of that fruit, pierce the 
outer rind. Mr. Trelease made careful notes respecting the manner in 
which the moths feed. These are published in his report. (See Appen- 
dix I.) 

" As this report is written chiefly for those who have not made a special study of en- 
tomology, a few words in explanation of the structure of the maxilhe of moths will 
not be out of place. In their simplest form, the mouth parts of insects consist of an 
upper lip, an under lip, and two pairs oi' jaws acting liorizoutally between them. In 
the case of butterflies and moths (Lcpidopicra) the lower jiairof jaws is developed iuto 
two long, flexible organs ; each of these has on one side a groove, and the two are 
fastened together so that the grooves form a tube, as shown in the center of Fig. 5. 



88 REPORT UPON COTTON INSECTS. 

There has been some discussion respecting the natural position of the 
moth while at rest. I found that in the field it almost invariably alights 
with its head down, but the majority of specimens which I saw in houses, 
when resting on the walls, did so with the head directed upwards. 

During the warmer part of the season the moths in confinement began 
to oviposit within thirty-six hours after emerging from the pupa state. 
During the autumn the time varied from four days to a week. The 
greater number of eggs are laid during the night. As already stated, 
the eggs are deposited chiefly on the lower surface of the larger leaves 
on the middle third of the plant. This may be owing to the fact that 
the moth is attracted to that part of the plant by the nectar glands 
which are on the leaves. In fact, Mr. Trelease observed moths alter- 
nately sipping nectar from these glands and ovipositing. During the 
operation the moths flew from leaf to leaf and from plant to plant, each 
moth depositing but a single egg on a leaf. Still, if we accept this as 
explaining why the moths oviposit on that part of the plant, it is diffi- 
cult to say why more eggs are not laid near the glands on the involucre, 
which the moths also frequently visit. 

The number of eggs laid by a single moth probably varies from 400 
to 600. September 11, I counted the number of eggs in the ovaries of 
a female taken in the field. There were 400 well developed eggs and 
284 immature ones. After that date I dissected many females, but 
found only innnature eggs. 

It is diflicult to say how long this insect exists in the adult state ; 
doubtless the time varies greatly with the season. Moths of the third 
and fourth broods die in confinement within five days after their exclu- 
sion from the pupa, while, as we shall show later, those of the last brood 
remain alive several months. 

The number of broods of this insect in a single season, is also some- 
what difficult to determine. For not only does the earliest brood ap- 
pear at diflereut times in difterent sections of the cotton belt, but in the 
same locality different individuals of the first brood were found to vary 
in age nearly two weeks. As a result of this variation during the latter 
part of the season, examples of all stages were found at the same time 
in the same field. Still a large proportion of the cotton-worms in a 
given locality undergo their transformations at nearly the same time ; so 
that broods sufficiently well marked for our purpose have been ob- 
served. And we conclude that in those sections in which we believe the 
moth to hibernate, there are each year at least six broods. By the 1st 
of September of the present year (1879) larvae of the fifth brood (third 
crop) were appearing in considerable numbers in Central Alabama. 
Moths bred from s^pecimens of this brood which were sent to this de- 
partment began to oviposit October 10, and October 15 larvne of the 
sixth brood began to appear. It is probable that the sixth brood ap- 
peared at an earlier date in Alabama, the development of the speci- 
mens in my breeding-cages being retarded by the low temperature of 
the room in which they were kept. 



POWERS OF FLIGHT OF THE MOTH. 89 

One of the most remarkable things in the natural history of this in- 
sect is the powers of flight which the moth possesses. There is no 
reason to believe that the species can survive the winter north of the 
cotton belt ; still, the moths have been repeatedly taken far north of the 
limit of cotton culture ; we are, therefore, forced to conclude that these 
moths have flown, aided perhaps by winds, from some portion of the 
cotton belt to where they were found. Dr. Packard has taken the moth 
on Coney Island and in Salem Harbor. Mr. Edward Burgess states 
that it flew aboard his yacht in Boston Bay, September 9, 1873. Mr. 
Grote informs me that it has occurred at Buffalo in September and Octo 
ber, and that he has heard of it at Chicago, Detroit, Loudon, Ont., 
Albany, and New York. Professor Eiley reports it from Chicago, and 
the letter of Mr. P. R. Hoy, already quoted, shows that it has occurred 
at Racine, Wis., in the autumn, repeatedly, in great numbers. It will 
be i oted that, in all the instances in which the date of the occurrence 
of the moths in these northern localities is given, they were found only 
in the autumn. This confirms the conclusion that the moths cannot en- 
dure a northern winter and that their presence in the I^orthern States 
is dependent on migrations from the South. 

Dr. Hoy states that he has never found the moths at Racine earlier 
than the last week of August. But the fact that they occur there in so 
great numbers as his letter indicates is very remarkable ; and what is 
more wonderful. Dr. Hoy informs me that he has repeatedly found the 
moth while the wings were yet soft, not quite dry ! This indicates with- 
out doubt that the moths had just emerged from the pupa state ; and 
that the larva has a food-plant in that locality. The numbers in which 
they occur there strengthens, if jjossible, this conclusion. For it is 
easier to suppose that a few moths have migrated to that locality each 
year, and that it is the i)rogeny of these moths which swarm upon the 
melons, than it is to suppose that the insect should migrate to that 
place j^ear after year in swarms, while it is but rarely observed, and 
then in small numbers, elsewhere in the iforthern States. As yet we 
have no idea what this food-plant is. The immature moths were taken 
"in the woods at night while sugaring"; this indicates that it is not a 
cultivated plant ; and we venture to predict that the jilant is not com- 
mon in the Southern States ; else the larva would have been observed 
upon it during the seasons that the cotton fields have been strii>ped of 
their foliage.* 

* As Dr. Hoy did not know the larva of Alctia argrUacea, I sent him speeimens to 
compare with the different harvae in his collection in order to ascertain if he had taken 
it at Racine. Just as this report is going to the press I receive from him a larva which 
undoubtedly belongs to this species. Respecting it, Dr. Hoy says: "I send to-day 
the only Wisconsin larva of the Aletia. I only received live, one. of which I pre- 
served ; the other four died in my l)reeding-cage as I did not know what they were, 
and was deceived as to the plant on which they were found. This is my record : 
" Taken in Pike Woods by Mary Deel, August 10, 1879 ; food-plant not satisfactorily 
described ; unknown to me.' " 

Since the above was written Dr. Packard notes, in the January number of the 



90 REPORT UPON COTTON INSECTS. 

Alexia argillacea Hiibner. 

^ 9 . — Color above light brown tinged with olive-green and wine color. Expanse 
of wings one and three-sixteenths inches to one and seven-sixteenths inches (30""" to 
36™"i). Length of body three-sixteenths to eleven-sixteenths inches (13™"^ to 17°""). 
Head varies from light brown to wine color, with a small whitish tuft before. Anten- 
nae clothed with dark-wine colored and white scales above, and short yellow hairs be- 
low. Mandibles conic, light yellow, furnished at the tip with a brush of spiny hairs. 
Labial palpi densely clothed with short scales which are white afid wine color mixed ; 
second joint twice the length of the first; third joint equaling the first in length Init 
much smaller. Thorax same color as head. Anterior wings tinged with wine color 
on the inner and middle part, shading into a light olive-green on the external i)or- 
tion. In some specimens the anterior wings are light olive-green throughout ; in other 
specimens the reddish tinge is very pronounced. 

External to and in front of the central portion of the anterior wing is a conspicuous 
black or grayish spot, composed of dark scales interspersed with white ones. Parallel 
to the anterior margin of the wing is a row of four minute white spots ; one is situated 
at the base of the wing, one between the dark discal spot and the anterior margin of 
the wing, the other two at equal dista^ices between these ; one or more of these spots 
are frequently wanting, and sometimes each one is surrounded by reddish scales ; the 
anterior wing is also nuuked by three transverse wavy lines, of a reddish color mar- 
gined with white; the inner line is one-fourth of the length of the wing from the body, 
the second line is near the middle of the wing, and the third line is outside the discal 
spot. Fringe white with six reddish spots: posterior wings with basal portion light, 
and outer part cloiuled ; lower surface light brownish gray; anterior wings with disk 
clouded and a short reddish l)and on the outer third of costa ; posterior wings Avith a 
transverse, narrow, wavy, brown band near the middle of the wing. Described from 
75 specimens. 

THE THREE CROPS OF WORMS. 

IsTotwitlistandino- that there are probably five or six broods of cottou- 
worms every year in tlie soutberu and central parts of the cotton belt, 
it is generally believed that there are only three broods. These have 
been designated by the i)lanters as the first, second, and third crops re- 
spectively. It is impossible to state a ride by which it can be determined 
to what broods the three crops coiTespond, as this ditt'ers in different 
localities and different seasons. Almost invariably nnmbers of the first 
brood of worms, and very often of the second, also, are so small that they 
escape the notice of observers. After a brood of sufficient size to be easily 
perceived has been developed, in about two more generations a sufficient 
number of worms is i>roduced to strip the cotton of its foliage. The re- 
sult of this, as will be shown later, is the destruction of the greater part 
of the worms also. The subsequent broods are small ; on this account, 
and because of the cotton crop being destroyed, the ])lanters lose inter- 
est in the development of the worms, and ilie later broods are not no- 
ticed. In a word, the idea oi" there being only three " crops" of worms 
has arisen from the ftict that as a rule tliere are only three broods of 
sufficient size to be noticed by the planters before the cotton crop is 

American Naturalist, the fact that specimens oi argillacea iiew into his study window 
at Providence Sept. 30. He says : " The moth was in a perfectly fresh condition, and 
bore every appearance of having quite recently emerged from the chrysalis. Its 
appearance certainly did not bear out the theory that all the northern individuals fly 
northward from the cotton belt," &c. 



MARCHING OF THE AVORMS. 91 

destroyed, or before the cotton lias reached a stage of maturity, after 
which the eating of the foliage by the worms is not considered a calamity. 
In some instances the first crop of worms is doubtless the second brood 
of the season ; in some instances it is not until the third brood is pro- 
duced that the worms are of sufficient numbers to be observed, and thus^ 
designated as a crop. 

The term "crop of worms" has become thoroughly incori^orated in 
the language of those most interested in the cotton-worm; and, more- 
over, it is a very convenient term. We shall therefore adopt it ; em- 
ploying it, however, in the sense in which it is geaerally used. Thus, by 
first crop of worms we shall mean not the first brood, but the earliest 
brood that is of sufficient size to be easily noticed ; and the second and 
third crops are the two broods immediately following the first crop. 
The term brood will be used in its usual sense. 

DISAPPEARANCE OF THIRD CROP. 

While contemplating, in the autumn of 1878, the immense number of 
worms which constitute the third crop, I was struck with the fact that 
if even a thousandth part of the worms were to mature and survive the 
winter the second brood in the spring would be of sufficient numbers 
to destroy the cotton crop. I was therefore interested in watching the 
disappearance of this so-called third crop. 

The result of these observations shows that when the cotton-worms 
occur in sufficiently great numbers to strip the cotton of its foliage the 
greater part of that brood i:)erishes at once. 

When the leaves of the cotton are destroyed the worms are forced to 
migrate in search of more food ; or, if they are fully grown, as is often 
the case, in search of places in which to undergo their transformations. 
While at Faunsdale, Marengo County, Alabama, August 28, 1878, I 
was fortunate enough to witness an attempted migration of this kind, 
which was attended with astonishing results. 

As soon as the larvae left the cotton stalks they experienced great 
difficulty in crawling over the surface of the ground. Clinging hold of 
the loose particles of earth by its prolegs, a larva would attempt to 
stretch its body forward in the manner peculiar to "loopers," but no 
sooner was the anterior part of its liody raised from the ground than 
the insect, unable to balance itself upon, the crumbling bits of earth, 
would fall to one side with the full length of its body upon the ground. 
Had it been a cloudy day, or had the ground been shaded, this would 
not have been so serious a matter to the larva ; but, as is usually the 
case at that season of the year, the sun Mas shining with an intense heat 
and the surface of the soil was as hot as the sides of an oven. The 
larvae did not seem to suffer so long as they were resting with their legs 
upon the ground, but no sooner did one of them fall so as to touch the 
earth with its body than it began to squirm violently. Sometimes a 
larva would regain its position upon its legs, but the first attempt at 



92 REPORT UPON COTTON INSECTS. 

looping would result as before, aud in a very short time, often not more 
than one or two minutes, it would succumb. The number of worms de- 
stroyed in this way is immense. I am certain that in the field in which 
I made these observations there were to each square foot of land at 
least an average of five dead worms that had been killed in the way de- 
scribed within a few hours. Other causes tend to render this destruc- 
tion more complete. Thousands of larvae are destroyed by ants. Many 
pupae and larvae which have "webbed up" and partially transformed 
are deprived of their covering of leaves by their voracious companions 
and fall to the ground where they perish. And still others, apparently 
more fortunate in transforming within the folds of the leaves of other 
plants than cotton, are imprisoned in their retreats by their companions 
which follow aud attempt to use the same leaves for the same purpose. 

DISAPPEARANCE OF THE LAST BROOD. 

Evidently after the disappearance of the brood of worms known as 
the third crop, one or more broods are usually developed in some i)arts 
of the cotton belt. Wherever the earliest spring brood is of cousider- 
able size, there will be developed in the second geueration a suflicient 
number of worms to attract general attention. In this case the fourth 
brood will constitute the third crop, and there will remain sufficient 
tioie for the development of one or two later broods. As already ex- 
plained these broods are small and attract little attention. Neverthe- 
less, the disappearance of the last brood is one of the most important 
points in the life-history of the cotton-worm. It is here that we may 
hope to learn much on the long-disputed x)oiut as to whether the species 
dies out each year in the United States or not. I regret that I have 
not been able to make personal observations on this point, as my stay 
in the field extended only to the first of October. Fortunately careful 
notes bearing on this subject were taken by Prof. E. A. Smith, at Tus- 
caloosa, Ala., and by Prof. I. E. Willet, at Macon, Ga. The following 
quotations from letters which Professor Smith addressed to this depart 
meut at the time will furnish important details respecting the disap- 
pearance of the autumn brood in Alabama : 

October 10. 

The worms have eaten most of the knaves and yonng bnds of the pUiuts iu my liehi 
and are on the move. They may be seen moving through the grass, potato vines, 
&c., and upon the trunks of pine trees, sehlom, however, higher than five or six feet 
from the ground, as tliey jump off or fall back after climbing to that height. I do 
not see that they have begun to eat anything else than the cotton. Most of the worms 
of the past week or ten days have webbed up in the cotton leaves, and many chrysa- 
lides hang from the denuded leaf stalks. They are scarcely at all covered ; tlie leaf 
blade in which they were once wrapped having been eaten away, and they hang 
almost free in the air. The present brood of worms I find webbing up in the leaves 
of various i>lants ; the following I have noticed : sweet potatoes, Cassia ohtiisifolia, 
and C. occidentalis, Physalis lanceolata, Solanum Carolinense, sassafras, PharhUis nil, 
Iporaea tamnifolia, Sida spinosa, Ambrosia artemisicefoUa, Xanthium strumariam, Euphor- 
bia maculata, Amaran.tiis spinosus, Qnerciis aquatica (small tree), sweet gum, watermelon, 



DISAPPEARANCE OF THE LAST BROOD. 93 

and young mulberries. The latter seems a favorite ; nearly all the leaves of half a 
dozen young mulberry plants are rolled up by the worms. A few worms of the 
present brood I have found webbed up in the cracks of the bark of old field pines 
standing in the field. Most that I have seen have been on the east, north, and west 
sides ; have seen none on the south side of the trees. The greater part of the present 
brood, however, are webbing up in any leaves that they encounter, grass leaves ex- 
cepted. 

The web made by the present brood of worms is simply a leaf rolled once and bound 
together by the silk. In the case of those worms webbing up in the crevices of pine 
bark, a thin gauze of silk was all that protected them. Through this web the worm can 
easily be seen. Thus far, I see no tendency on the part of the worms to make a denser 
cocoon than those of the preceding brood. I have noticed the moths occasionally fly 
up from a mass of sweet-potato vines, among which Cassia obiusifdlia and C. occidelitalis 
were growing. Perhaps the glands on the leaf stalks of these two species may have 
offered some attraction, though I have not seen any moth upon the plants. In some 
old stumps in my field I have not yet found any chrysalides, nor have I noticed any 
in the ground. 

October 16. 

As I wrote you October 10 the caterpillars were then moving about in search of 
food, the cotton leaves being nearly all eaten up. After about two days only a few 
worms were to be seen, the greater part having disappeared, or webbed up in all sorts 
of leaves, in the crevices of bark of pine trees, and, in one instance, in the mosquito- 
netting in one of the rooms in my house. 

After the great majority of the worms had left the plants a few might be seen for 
several days, eating the cotton boll or stretched at length along the petiole or one of 
the ribs of a denuded leaf. These stragglers would eat into large bolls (nearly full 
grown). Since day before yesterday, October 14, I have not noticed any worms in the 
field. The leaves were about all eaten up by the 10th or 11th, so that the worms were 
noticed only a few days afterwards, and then only as stragglers from the main army 
of worms, which had gone in search of food or had webbed up. I saw no worm eating 

anything except the leaves and bolls and young buds of the cotton j)lant. 

* » # # * # * 

October 21. 
On last Friday night we had some frost, and for the past three nights I have not 
noticed any of the cotton moths at my baited trees; but there in another moth which 
comes, whether the weather be cold or warm. I have a few chrysalides under a glass 
shade ; several moths have come from them since the cool weather set in, and I expect 
to see quite a number of the moths yet from the last brood of worms which webbed up 

after they had eaten up all of the cotton leaves. 

^ # * # • * * 

October 26. 
Since last writing we have had two or three heavy white frosts, viz, on the nights of the 
22d, 23d, and 24th. On these nights I saw no moths, except one or two species of which I 
wrote last week. I do not know their names, but they are not Aletia. On the morn- 
ing of the 23d three moths cauie from the chrysalides which I have under a glass shade, 
on a shelf on my porch exjtosed to the weather. The moths were benumbed with cold 
and apparently dead ; but they all revived after being brought into a warm room. I 
turned them loose next day when it Avas warm and pleasant. Last night the ther- 
mometer stood out-doors at 60° F., and on visiting my baited trees I found several of 
the cotton moths there. They seem to lie up during the cold siiells and to come out 
when the weather moderates. I have in mind always to find out, if possible, whether 
the chrysalides are formed in the ground. I have found many on the ground, but 
they had evidently dropped from the plants after having webbed up there ; other 
worms having eaten away the leaves which sustained them. There are hundreds and 
perhaps thousands of chrysalides of the last brood of worms, webbed up in the leaves 



94 REPORT UPOX COTTON INSECTS. 

of vaiions kinds of '.veeds, of which I gave you a partial list some time ago. To thia 
you can ad'l Passijiora Incarnata. The great majority of these chrysalides have not 
yet hatched out. 

;< if * * # # # 

November 4. 
The evening of October 26 was warm (06^ at 7 p. m. ), and more than 50 cotton, 
moths were counted at my baited tree. It rained before morning, then cleared off 
cold, so that on the 27th and 28th. no moths were seen. On the 29th it was warmer 
and cloudy, rained slightly, and I counted 7 or 8 moths. On the 30th, 31st, 1st, and 2d, 
<5old and frosty nights : no moths seen. During this last cold spell ice has formed in 
thin sheets, and I am anxious to know how it has affected the moths. One has hatched 
out trom the chrysalides, which I have under cover since the cold nights of the last 
•week. 

November U. 
I judge by the scarcity of the cotton-moths since cold weather that they are not able 
to stand the cold, and have either been killed or forced to seek secure quarters. I 
have found none yet in bark of trees or elsewhere. Some of the chrysalides of the 
last brood are still rolled in the leaves in the cotton field ; but a few which I examined 
some days ago seem to have died. These chrysalides are slightly shriveled up, and 
some of them are certainly decaying, if I may judge by the smell when they are 
opened. 

The following' extracts troin letters received by this department from 

Professor Willet will indicate the details of the disappearance of the 

last brood of 1878 in Georgia : 

October 6. 

I was in the cotton fields some hours this morning. The condition of things is about 
this: Very few larvie ; mostly greenish-yellow in color. Few pupae ; moths mostly out ; 
all will be out in two or three days. Many moths, probably a majority just out from 
pupa\ Considerable number of eggs; none some days since. I hear of caterpillars 
in small numbers in most of the State below this. This brood of caterpillars has 
■webbed up almost entirely on the cotton stalks on which they fed. Where those stalks 
were entirely divested of leaves, a few went to weeds near by. They seem to have no 
disposition to ramble, eating the leaves, investing chrysalides, the involucre of bolls, 
and even young bolls before they would crawl to adjacent stalks which had not been 
touched. 

The moths, as yet, are near the small, isolated patches invaded by them as cater- 
pillars, and on the southwest side of field towards which a strong northeaster has 
driven them some days. I do not find many in the grass and stubble on borders of 
the field. 

October 10. 
I send box, with about a dozen each, of larvae and pupae, all I found yesterday in 
walking over 10 to 15 acres. The moths are much scattered, and attractives put out 
night before last drew only two or three. I do not find that they are leaving the field 
for shelter. There ai"e no dead trees nor stumps in which they may hide ; but I scare 
np none in the waste patches of grass and weeds on one side of the field. If it was 
now Angust, we should ha%'e the promise of a large crop of worms soon. It is of in- 
terest to know whether they will appear in October. 

* 5i' > * * r 

JCTOBER 18. 

The situation in the field here is as follows: A few moths; most rather ragged; a 
few. new and bright, just out from late pupae ; some eggs, a few green aud fresh, 
others dried up : no larvae. I searched diligently with a glass for young larvae, but 



DISAPPEARANCE OF THE LAST BROOD. 95 

found not one where there were eggs a week to ten days ago. There were plenty of 
grown larvae when we returned here, September 15, and a few pupae and moths. The 
caterpillars diminished gradually till about October 1, since which time there have 
been only occasional stragglers. The pupae increased to about same date, and moths 
came out very numerously from October 1 to 5 ; more sparingly afterwards. The 
abundance of pupae and moths foreshadowed a good brood of caterpillars which will 
never appear, even if we have no frost to-night. Xortheasters have prevailed during 
the month, though without frost. It has been very dry. The thermometer was 51^ 
on Sunday and 50^ this morning — the coldest day. The cotton leaves are old and 
speckled, except the new young leaves here and there, which are fiesh and green. 

October 19. 

I sent you a few pupae and some moths in chloral solution yesterday, supposing they 
would be the last. But there was very little frost last night, and I visited another 
field to-day, where the cotton was planted later and is younger, and, being on well- 
manured ground, is fresher, greener, and more vigorous. Here the situation is some- 
what less advanced than in the field sent from last. 

Thermometer at sunrise, 39°. Wind northwest. Slight frost ; cotton i>lant in- 
jured. A few moths, flying rather feebly from cold. A few eggs, some fresh ; some 
straggling larvae, mostly nearly full fed — a few half grown, and two only i inch long, 
the only young ones I have seen for some time. The cotton plant still quite green and 
vigorous and blooming ; wasps sucking freely at the glands — our social subterranean 
wasp, called "yellow-jacket." 

OCTOBER 26. 

I visited the field to-day from which I sent you specimens on the 19th. There was 
a slight frost on that morning (19th) as I wrote; thermometer 39- F. There was a 
similar one next morning, 20th; thermometer 38°. 5 F. At a point not far from the 
field (Pio Nono College, which reports to the Signal Office), I understand the register- 
ing minimum there stood at 33°. Cotton partially killed in places ; worst where the 
worms were. Very dry. I send you two boxes of specimens, one box containing a 
few Aletia moths caught in the field and 30 or 40 pupae, the other a dozen or so living 
Aletia argiUacea larvae. 

Situation. — Cotton foliage much reduced bj- age and cold, but still some young green 
leaves and some blooms. A few Aletia eggs, two or three seen ; fewer than a week ago. 
No young larvae, none less than three-quarters grown ; a few pupae, and about as many 
moths as a week ago, most of them apparently just out. 

November 2. 
We had ice and temperature of 31°. 5 F. yesterday, and white frost and temperature 
33° F. this morning. The cotton plant is dead. Will write you more fully in a day 
or two. 

XOVE.MBER 7. 

The moths continued to be found in the fields, most abundantly near the patches 
most eaten, where they were daily coming out from pupae, certainly till October 26 ; 
November 1, when the freeze occurred, not one was scared up. I have seen no dift'er- 
ence in the habits of the last brood of worms here in webbing up or seeking quarters. 

December 11. 
I intended placing some chrysalides and moths of Aletia argiUacea in boxes and ex- 
posing them, with fair protection, through the winter, to see whether they could i)as3 
the winter here alive. I soon found, before fiost, that it was impracticable then, 
as the former would come out and the latter die from the warmth. Frost caught me 
in this quandary. I then gathered, November 4, a lot of chrysalides (the moths had 
disappeared) and, on examining them, found them in so unsatisfactory condition, that 
I concluded not to expose them. About two dozen were placed in a box in my sitting 



96 REPORT UPON COTTON INSECTS. 

toom, hoping to hatch some moths for exposure. The followiug is the result : In some 
two weeks two moths came out ; they seemed delicate, and one lived only two days, the 
other four or five. No other moths have appeared. November 29, 1 found four Ichneu- 
mon flies out in box. December 2 one more, and December 7 another, the sixth, the 
last, with uo ovipositor. In breaking open the dried chrysalides, I destroyed two pujiae 
of parasites. These make eight parasites in some two dozen chrysalides; a large 
proportion. I had 75 chrysalides in a box in summer ; about 50 came out moths; most 
of the others could not escape from and perished in the dried leaves. I saw not a par- 
asite of any kind. 

The two following extracts from Professor Grote's letters also bear 
upon this point : 

The cotton plant is now (November 21) stripped of leaves, except here and there at 
the tops ; there is also a little new growth on the main stem. The worm appeared here 
September 7, increasing in size and more noticeable up to the 15th, when the earliest 
webbing was noticed. The worm was not very numerous nor of even distribution. 
The October brood was hardly noticed ; nevertheless, it must have existed, as I have 
been finding chrysalides (not many) for the last few days wherever the leaf still held. 
This shows that the last brood does not quit the jjlaut, as I have formerly observed in 
Alabama. Nevertheless, I searched a piece of wood and some fence-corners, as in- 
structed, but found nothing. 



Saint Catheiune's Island, Coast of Georgia, 

Xoremher 28, 1878. 
I think my observations go to show that the w^orm does not leave the plant for the 
last or at auy time. In Savannah I failed to find any traces away from the field. In 
my former published observations in Alabama, I found the last chrysalides giving the 
fly in the face of the frost. When the leaf fails, the worms web up any way i>08sible 
in the squares, or between the stem and the leaf stalks. They never leave the plant; 
in a few cases they spin up on weeds in the cotton rows. 

From the above-qnotecl t;orresponclence and from other material, some 
of which may be found in Appendix II, we feel warranted in stating the 
following conclusions respecting the disappearance of the last brood of 
worms : In making preparations to undergo their tranformations, indi- 
viduals of this brood do not differ in habits from those of the preceding 
broods, except that, as the foliage of the cotton is frequently destroyed, 
it becomes necessary for the worms to seek other places in which to web 
up. Thus we see the worms webbing up, not only in the leaves of cot- 
ton, but in the leaves of any plant that they can find, and even in the 
crevices of bark of trees. No tendency on the part of the worms to 
make a denser cocoon than those of the preceding broods was observed. 
A large part of the puijae, whi(;h were enveloped in leaves of cotton, 
became exposed and fell to the groimd owing to the consuming of the 
leaves by other larvae. Many such pupae would naturally fall i)rey to 
predaceous insects or be destroyed by other causes. Thus we find, as 
with the third crop, that a large proportion of this brood is destroyed 
in a very short time after assuming the pupa state. The length of time 
which individuals of this brood remained in the pupa state varied greatly y 
many' moths emerged early in October, and a few emerged each day till 



FIRST APPEARANCE. 97 

the latter part of the month, when heavy frost occurred. The only 
instances of moths emerginti: from the pupa state after a heavy frost, of 
which we have been able to learn, are those mentioned in Professor Smith's 
letters of October 26 and November 4, and in Professor Willet's letter 
of December 11. Professor Smith also wrote December 30 : "All the 
chrysalides which I have examined are dead, so that not many, if any, 
will survive the winter." 

FIRST APPEARANCE. 

No point in the life history of the cotton-worm is of higher interest 
than the first appearance of the insect in the spring. Not only may we 
expect to learn here important facts bearing upon the question of hiberna- 
tion of the species in our territory, but other facts which will be of serv- 
ice to us in our efforts to devise some way in which to check the increase 
of this pest as soon as it appears. The general impression has been that 
the earliest appearance of the worms in the cotton fields was during the 
latter part of June or in July. This has been urged as a proof of the 
theory that the species dies out each season in the United States; and, 
what is much more serious, this idea has influenced the planters to neglect 
making any efforts to destroy tlie worms early in the season. 

Although vigorous efforts were made to collect specimens of the moth 
early in the spring, none were observed, i^aits of various sweetened mix- 
tures were exposed; these attracted many moth s> but none of them were 
Aletia. Neither did any specimens of the cotton-moth come to light at 
that season. This, however, only proves the futility of any attempts of 
this kind to destroy the moth at that season of the year. For we know 
that moths were present and ovipositing on the cotton very soon after 
the young plants emerged from the ground. This is shown by the fact 
that May 21 a full-grown larva was found in Dallas County, Alabama, 
on some small cotton, which was planted April 30, and was well up about 
May 8. On May 23 another larva was found in the same field. As this 
cotton wasimmediately adjoining some which was planted a month earlier, 
there is a possibility that the larvae were hatched on the latter, and mi- 
grated to the place where found ; but in any case it is evident that 
moths were flying and ovipositing on the cotton while it was yet cpiite 
young. Other larvae were observed at this time ; one May 23 on the 
older cotton ; and another June 3. These particular instances are cited, 
as there is no doubt of the identity of the larvae. We believe, however, 
that they were found even earlier in the season. Colonel Lewis, of Ver- 
non Station, in the Canebrake region, Alabama, found a full-grown larva 
May 17 ; and May 24 they were reported from two other plantations in 
the Canebrake. 

The following testimony of our correspondents is imi)ortant as con- 
firming these observations. It will be seen that in several instances the 
worms have been observed at even earlier dates than those given above. 
7 CI 



98 REPORT UPON COTTON INSECTS, 

The extracts are from the answers to the question, "Date when the first 
worms have been noticed in your locality ■? " 

In 1875, they appeared the 8th of May ; 187G, 1st June. — [J. H. Krancher, Millheim, 
Austin County, Texas. ] 

Worms were seen in 1873 in May. — [H. Hawkins, Hawkinsville, Barbour County, 
Alabama. ] 

I liave seen a well-developed caterpillar eating the cotton when I was putting it to 
stand in May, but the appearance then was no sign that they destroyed the crop ear- 
lier than usual ; did not propogate or do any harm until the season of the year usual, 
from June on. — [A. Jay, Jaysville, Conecuh County, Alabama.] 

Late in May or early in June. — [C. C. Howard, Autaugaville, Autauga County, 
Alabama. ] 

In 1873, I saw them as early as 20th of May. — [R. S. Williams, Mount Meigs, Mont- 
gomery County, Alabama. ] 

The first appearance of the worms is difficult to ascertain, from the fact that they 
are so few at first and scattered over so large an area of cotton fields. The negroes 
who mostly cultivate these fields say that the first worms appear sooner than we 
imagine (say some time in May). Our own observation is that the eggs of the moth 
are deposited when the cottou begins to bloom ; and this is later some years than 
others. The average time is the first week in Juno on the earliest cotton stalks. — 
[Dr. John Pcurifoy, Mount Meigs, Montgomery County, Alabama.] 

Early in May, 1888, I found several worms in dilFereut localities. — [P. T. Graves, 
Burkville, Lown<le8 County, Alabama.] 

On swamp land, May 31, 1877. — [J. H. Smith and J. F. Calhoun, Minter, Dallas 
County, Alabama. ] 

May 12. — J. A. Callaway, Snowdown, Montgomery County, Alabama. 

The first worms that I have ever known were reported as early as May 1. — [R. W. 
Russell, Lowndesborough, Lowndes County, Alabama. 

I think there is a pre*^ty good brood hatched out in May and early in Juno that 
would destroy the crop but for the plowing that shakes them ott" the stalks and covers 
them with earth. — [J. W. Burke, Fayette, Jefferson County, Mississii>pi. 

May, June, July, August. — [U. L. Phares, Woodville, Wilkinson Countj^, Missis- 
sippi. 

I have had my neighbors tell me that they found the genuine array worm on the 
young cotton plants when working them for the first time — scraping and chopping 
out, but I cannot say that I have seen any so early myself. These persons were reli- 
able and I have governed myself in planting by what they reported to me. — [Douglass 
M. Hamilton, Saint Francisville, West Feliciana County, Louisiana.] 

Last of May on my place; liave heard of them in other localities sooner. — [Wm. A. 
Harris, Isabella, Worth County, Georgia. 

18(>9; May 12, 1873; May 24, 1877; June 19, 1878; June 15.— [Robert Gamble, Talla- 
hassee, Leon County, Florida. 

Sometimes as early as May. — [J. D. Driesbach, Tcnsaw, Baldwin County, Alabama. 

The 17th of May, 1874. — [P. D. Bowleg, Evergreen, Conecuh County, Alabama. 

Tlnis we see that there is not as long an interval between the disap- 
pearance of the last brood in the fall and the appearance of the first 
brood in the spring as there has been supposed to be. In fact the inter- 
val is as short as possible ; for the moths oviposit on the cotton as soon 
as there is sufficient food for the larvte. Tlie first larva found by Mr. 
Trelease this season had consumed several plants. 

Atopic of scarcely less interest than the date at which the cotton-worms 
first appear is the localities in which the first brood occurs. Every planter 



HIBERNATION. 99 

with wliora we have conversed on the subject informs us that in each 
locality the worms first appear on a certain plantation, and on a very 
limited part of that plantation. We examined several of these places 
carefully, but found no striking local peculiarities. They all agree, how- 
ever, in being on low land and where the cotton has a thrifty growth. 
In connection with this testimony of the planters, we must take into ac- 
count the fact that they seldom observe the worms till the latter part of 
June or even till July. It is evident, therefore, that it is the first " croj)" 
of worms that appear in the above described localities, and that the 
testimony has but little bearing ou the origin of the first brood. As yet 
we have but little data upon this point ; but that whicli we have indi- 
cates that the first brood of worms is scattered indiscriminately over 
those sections in which they occur. Specimens of the first brood were 
found by Mr. Trelease on cotton growing on bottom land, in a swamp, 
on an elevation rising from this, and on a ridge considerably distant from 
the swamp. Thus no local peculiarities of the soil seem to influence the 
distribution of the worms, except that where the cotton is the earliest 
the moths first find a place to oviposit. 

We have therefore a very interesting problem presented to us. Why 
is it that if individuals of the first brood of worms occur indiscrimin- 
ately on cotton growing on w^et and on dry land, that the greater pro- 
portion of the second or third brood (the first crop) is found only on 
low, wet lands ? The only explanation we can offer, so far, is t,hat in the 
wet lands there is but little to check the natural increase of the species ; 
while in dry lauds the predaceous insects, especially ants, destroy a 
large proportion of the larvae of the earlier broods. This point will be 
referred to again in the chapter on influence of weather. 

It has often been asserted, especially by those who advocate the 
theory of immigrations of the moth, that the cotton- worm apiiears first 
in the western and southern i)ortions of the cotton belt, and progresses 
regularly toward the east and north. But this does not seem to be the 
case. As we have already shown, in the spring of the present year 
(1879) the worms were in Central Alabama as early as there was food for 
them. And in 1873, when the first brood was so large as to attract gen- 
eral attention, the worms appeared simultaneously (during May) in 
Jackson County and Gadsden County, Florida, Decatur County, Geor- 
gia, Marion County, Mississippi, and Atascosa County and Victoria 
County, Texas.* 

HIBERNATION. 

How does the cotton- worm j)a,ss the winter 1 This is a question most 
often asked respecting this insect, and as yet the answers have been 
only theories. Many have believed that the pupae of the last brood pass 
the winter in the ground. This we now know cannot be the case, as the 
larvae of the last brood web up in leaves in a similar way as do the 
* Monthly reports of the Department of Agriculture, 1873, p. 23-9. 



100 REPORT UPON COTTON INSECTS. 

larvae of other broods, and those pupae which fall to the ground on ac- 
count of the destruction of their leafy covering are soon destroyed by 
ants. Even if they were not destroyed, they have do power of working 
their way into the earth, as has been supi)osed by many. Of the very 
many pupae which have been found in the ground and sent to this de- 
partment by persons supposing them to be those of the cotton-worm, 
not one has proved to be such. Many moths closely related to the cot- 
ton-worm — that is, belonging to the same family (the Noctuidae) — pass 
the winter in the ground in the pupa state. It is such pupae, and espe- 
cially those of the boll- worm, that have been mistaken for those of the 
cotton- worm. 

It has been contended by some that if the cotton-worm survived the 
winter in the United States, it would exist in such numbers in the 
spring that it would sweep away the young cotton plants at once. But, 
from what we have seen of the disappearance of the " third crop " and 
of the last brood, it is evident that m any case only a few individ- 
uals survive the autumn. Numerous instances of pupae which were 
undoubtedly those of the cotton- worm remaining alive ' after heavy 
frosts, and even till midwinter, are on record ; but it is a suggestive 
fact that there are but few well authenticated instances of pupae 
producing moths after heavy frosts have occurred, those mentioned in 
the letters of Professors Smith and Willet, quoted above, being the 
only ones known to us. Is it not probable that observers have been 
misled by the movements of pupae containing i>arasites? Every ento- 
mologist Ivuows that dead ])upae are frequently seen to roll about as if 
alive, the motions being due to the parasite within. One of the most 
interesting of the published observations on this point is the following, 
by William Jones, in the Southern Cultivator, March 1, 18G9: 

Last fall we watched the caterpillar up to the time when their operations were 
suspended by a sev-ere frost. We found large numbers killed by the cold — a few, in 
sheltered spots still alive. Many were caught just beginning to wind up and prepar- 
ing to pass into the chrysalid gtate, whilst the chrysalids were in every stage up to 
the point of being ready to come out as moths. On the edge of thj field the chrysa- 
lids were attached to briars and weeds, having wound themselves up in their leaves 
(which winding up in leaves is, so far as we have observed, their invariable habit). 
We collected a large number of these chrysalids, and, inclosing them in a bag, hung 
them up in a porch facing northward. The thermometer indicated : 

November 2, 30°. 

November 20, 28°. 

November 22, 25°. 

November 23, 24°. 

December 2, 27°. 

December 12, 12°. 

December 13, 16°. 

Wo examined them on the 14th of December, and found them still alive. On exam- 
ining the bag again, about the last of December, to our very great disappointment, we 
found that a bird had pierced the bag and eaten them. Wo shall have to wait, there- 
fore, another opportunity to test the manner in which the insect pass'js through the 
winter. About the middle of February we visited the same field again ; a majority of 



SEARCH FOR HIBERNATING INDIVIDUALS. 101 

chrysalid cases (which were still abundant) we found empty, with every indication of 
the insect havinj^ matured and escaped. A limited number we found apparently un- 
changed, and started back rejoicing that we had been able to replace those destroyed 
by the bird ; but, alas, upon accidentally crushing one, we found within it an ich- 
neumon, and this proved to be the case with all we had collected. Some of the ich- 
neumons had comiileted their transformation, and were about to come out as perfect 
insects. 

Many planters believe that they have seen the adult during winter 
and early spring. But in every instance when such moths have been 
sei.t to an entomologist they have proved to belong to some other spe- 
cies than Aletia argillacea. Many moths were sent to this department 
during the past winter, by persons supposing them to be cotton-moth ; 
but in every instance, with one possible exception, they proved to be- 
long to other species. The only instance where there is any doubt is in 
the case of some moths collected by Judge J. F. Baily, of Marion, Ala. 
Eespecting these moths, Judge Baily writes : 

They appeared the last days of February in swarms, about dusk, around the 
roofs of the houses, as if they had come from the shingles as winter quarters. Since 
their Irrst appearance in February, I have seen them every pleasant evening, in the 
twilight, sporting first around the plum blooms, and then around the peach, the mock- 
orange, the Chinese quince, and other blooms. 

Specimens of the moths were sent to Prof. E. A. Smith, to whom the 
letter from which we have just quoted was addressed. Professor Smith 
forwarded the specimens to the department, but they never reached their 
destination. At a later date Professor Smith writes : 

I am sorry you did not receive the moths which I sent yon from Judge Bg,ily. They 
were very much rubbed, and I could not be suie about them, still they did not appear 
to me to be the cotton-moth. 

At a still later date Professor Smith wrote : 

I have just returned from a trip to Marion, where I saw Judge Baily. Judge Baily 
has never since that time seen any of the moths which were so abundant a month or 
two ago ; he will try his best to collect any moth that resembles Aletia, and I think if 
it visits his neighborhood he will observe it. I am very doubtful if what he sent 
me and I sent to you was the true cotton-moth; it resembled Leucania unipnncta. 

During the winter of 1878-'79 the following named local observers for 
this department were on the look out for living pupae or adults of A. 
argillacea: Professor Willet, at Macon, Ga.; Professor Smith, at Tusca- 
loosa, Ala.; Dr. Anderson, at Kirkwood, Miss., and Judge Jones, at Vir- 
ginia Point, Tex. iS"ot one of these gentlemen was successful. Profes- 
sor Smith, in particular, made great exertions to obtain specimens of 
the adult. He had sweetened mixtures for attracting moths exposed 
during the entire winter; but although he constantly obtained other 
moths, as already stated, not a single Aletia was found. It is important 
to note that Professor Smith's observations were made at a point which 
may be farther north than the cotton-moth can hibernate. But in the 
latter part of December Professor Willet made a trip to Southern Georgia, 
where a careful search was rewarded only by a few dead pupae and 
many empty pupa-skins; the latter were found in dead wood and under 



102 KEPORT UPON COTTON INSECTS. 

bark of pine trees ; many were also taken from ragweed on edge of a 
cotton field. 

In addition to the efforts of the local observers, Mr. Schwarz, who has 
had a wide and very successful experience as a field entomologist, made 
an extended tour through the cotton belt, in order to ascertain what he 
could respecting the winter quarters of this insect. 

Mr. Schwarz was no more successful in this particular than were his 
colaborers. As he did not include the details of this trip in his report, 
which is published in Appendix I of this work, the following account 
of his journey will be of interest as bearing on the question of hiberna- 
tion. 

Mr. Schwarz proceeded from Washington to Galveston, Tex., which 
point he reached December 5. He made a short and unavailing search 
with Judge Jones, and then proceeded to Columbia, Brazoria County. 
From that point he writes : 

After two days digging iu tbo cotton field, with the assistance of a negro, I have 
satisfied myself that neither on the cotton plant nor in the ground is to be found a 
single trace of the liibernation oi Aletia argUlacea, at least in this portion of the cot- 
ton belt. It remains to look for the moth in the woods, which, with their countless 
trunks and logs of live-oak (there are no pine trees here), afiord plenty of shelter. I 
began to look in these old trees and under bark, and by smoking in cracks of logs I 
captured a few other Noctuidac, but no Aletia. I tried sugaring some trees last night, 
but with no success. 

I also tried lanterns and caught a few Xoctuidae, but no A. argUlacea. I shall con- 
tinue to look for it in the woods, but I have given up the hope of finding the chrysalis in 
the ground, and in this last conclusion the farmers of the Brazos bottom agree with 
me. 

Thence he proceeded to San Antonio and from there to Columbus, 
Colorado County, which he reached December 25. Investigations here 
resulted in the finding of four parasitized chrysalides. Hearne, Tex., was 
his next point of destination ; and from there he returned to Galveston 
and went by boat to Xew Orleans. From this place he writes as fol- 
lows, giving his explanation of his want of success : 

After more than four weeks experience in the South I have como to the conclusion 
that Aletia argUlacea hibernates iu the United States. The reasons Avhich lead me to 
beUove this are, first, the gradual increase iu the number from the very few specimens 
iu the first generation to the myriads of the last generation. Spcourl, that A. argUlacea 
has been observed much earlier iu the season than is geuer.illy believed. One of the 
best observers I met, Mr. G. Little, has seen the worms on t\w 10th of May. It seems 
to me, therefore, an established fact that very few specimens of A. argUlacea appear 
very early in the season, and probably those only in the bottom-lauds. It ai>pears to 
me highly improbable that these few specimens should immigrate from the South, 
year after year, or at least diu-iug the past ten years. I think if themoth is migratory 
iu its habits it would appear suddenly iu considerable numbers. (I do not know 
npon what grounds the theory of the " three generations" of the cotton- worm is founded, 
but I cannot see how this insect which transforms iu less than four weeks should pass 
through only three generations if it appears as soon as the beginning of May). It is 
certainly much more natural to assume that a few, perhaps only a very few specimens of 
the moth, probably impregnated females, do hibernate. There is, of course, but little 
chance to find one of these hibernating siiecuuens owing to the multitude of hiding 



NOTES OF ME. SCHWARz's JOURNEY. 103 

places and the diflSculty, or ratlier impossibility, of making a thorougli investigation 
in this respect. lu my opinion the least difficult way of solving this vexed question 
would be to place an observer at some suitable point in the South, who should from 
the very tirst warm day of the year, saj' the 1st of February, go out every eveuiug with 
lauterns and try the experiment of sugaring trees. If this course were followed I 
think he would be able to find A. argiUacca. To hud the moth in the winter time in 
the cracks of the countless old live-oaks in the bottom-lands is a matter of mere 
chance. 

At Bayou Sara, La., Mr. Schwarz made a tborough search for hiber- 
nating moths under the bark of trees surrounding- the fiekl, and in 
similar places, but without success. From a letter dated Vicksburg, 
Miss., January 28, we extract the following: 

Since I wrote you my last letter I have continued my eftorts to find hibernating 
individuals of ^ie/i'a. Favored by the mild weather, I have hunted every day from 
morning until evening with this sole object in view, and have cei-tainly made a 
thorough investigation of the coimtry around Bayou Sara and Francisville. I never 
saw a country better suited for this purpose than the valleys and bluifs in West Fe- 
liciana Parish; but my eiforts were all in vain, and I failed completely to discover 
any trace of the hibernation of the moth. However, my belief in the hibernation of 
the cotton-insect is not shaken by this failure, but I must confess that I feel very 
much discouraged after this fortnight of uninterrupted eftbrt, and almost despair of 
finding the moth. But this failure does not by any means warrant the acceptation of 
the theory of the annual migration of the moth, as I can j)rove bj'^ the following facts : 
During the last warm days the country around Bayou Sara has been swarming with 
Vanessa Atlanta, and I have never been able to find a single living specimen of the per- 
fect insect, or a living pupa in winter quarters. I could add similar instances, e. g., 
Orchestria tritiata and Dlbolia aerea among the Coleoptera have during the last warm 
days been commonly seen dying about or sitting on fence posts, etc., and I have never 
succeeded in finding these species in their winter quarters. I repeat that the vast 
majority of hiding places best suited for the hibernation of a Lepidopteron — I mean 
the cracks in drij, solid timber — are inaccessible, and the investigation of the few of 
these cracks which are accessible is connected with considerable difficulty and loss of 
time. If we are unable to find even very common insects in their winter quarters, we 
ought not to be astonished if we are unable to find the cotton-moth, which, if it 
hibernates here, does so certainly in very small numbers. 

A letter from Mobile, Ala., February 17, contains the following : 

Since leaving Vicksburg I have traveled through the central portions of the cotton 
belts of Mississippi and Alabama, stopping at Jackson, Canton, Kirkwood, Meridian, 
and Tuscaloosa. During all this time the weather has been unfavorable ; in fact since 
I left Bayou Sara there has been nothing but rain and cold. However, it was Avith 
great interest that I entered this part of the cotton belt, as I found here for the first 
lime fine lands where a thorough search for A. argillacea is much more easily made 
than in the more southern bottom-lands, which are full of thick forests of live-oak. 
But after excursions made at the places mentioned, and after the information I re- 
ceived regarding the appearance of the cotton-worm last year, I feel fully convinced 
that this insect does not hibernate in any stage in the upland cotton districts of Mis- 
sissippi and Alabama, 

In the course of the journey mentioned in the above extract Mr. 
Schwarz spent some time with Dr. Anderson, in Kirkwood, Miss., and 
with Prof. E. A. Smith, in Tuscaloosa, Ala. Mr. Schwarz says in the 
last quoted letter : 

Dr. Anderson thinks that the following conditions favorable to the hibernation of 
the pupa may occur : First, the chrysalis might fall to the ground and be accidently 



104 REPORT UPON COTTON INSECTS. 

covered by leaves .i-ud other debris. Second, it might be carried into the gin-houses 
and covered with old seeds or refuse cotton, &c. 

The first case is very improbable, in my opinion, as the chrysalid would certainly be 
killed by the mold, or the decay brought on by moisture. In regard to the second 
case I must confess that I consider it very possible provided that Dr. Anderson's ob- 
servation be correct. While iu Hoarne, I examiued the refuse cotton of a gin-house, 
and subsequently again near Canton, but without success. The possibility, however, 
that the pupa could hibernate in such places cauuot be denied. 

It is to be regretted that Professor Smith and Dr. Anderson do not reside in the 
southern extremities of the cotton belt, as there is no question in my mind but that 
yi. a)Y/(7/acea spreads from there to the more uoi'thern portions every year; and that 
the question of the hibernation of this insect can only be solved by patient observa- 
tions in these southern bottom-hinds. 

Professor Smith, whose house is well situated for observation, as his own cotton 
field is close by, Avill certainly fail in finding the cotton-moth on his sugared trees, 
although he is "baiting" his trees (>.very warm evening. 

As a very good place for observations to be taken early in the spring, I would recom- 
mend Columbus. Tex., or one of the other great bottom-lauds of the State. In South- 
em Louisiana the bottom-lands, or rather the low alluvial lands, are exclusively 
devoted to fhe cultivation of the sugar-cane. The Mississippi bottom-land in the 
Louisiana cotton belt is not extensive enough for such observation. In the interior of 
Louisiana and throughout Mississippi the true bottom-lands are not cultivated gener- 
ally because they are subject to frequent ov^erllows ; this, however, is not the case 
with those in Texas. 

From Mobile, Mr. Scliwarz proceeded to Tallahassee, Fla., by way of 
Eufanla, Ala. In. a letter of February 26, from tbe latter place, be says : 

I spent a. whole day on Mr. Donovan's plantation in hunting for Aletia arrjiUaeea, 
but with no success. Nc^ir the cotton Held begins a very large thick hummock, where 
a. thorough investigation is altogether imi)ossible. * * * In order to go from 
Mobile to Florida I had to make a (Uitour by way of Eufanla. At this place; I h.id to 
wait four days for the steamer. However, I was not sorry to be detained at Eiifaula, 
as cotton is most extensively planted in the vicinity of the place, and as I have found 
here for the first time a locality where hiding places for hibernation of the moth are 
comparatively scarce. I had thus an opportunity to make in two days a systematic 
and thorongh exploration of the broad valley of a little ci'eek. In fact I looked every- 
Avherc except in the roofs of the houses. Moreover, several fields were just plowed, 
and I had again occasion to convince myself that there are no pupis of A. argillacea 
in the ground. I repeat here that I feel more than ever convinced that the insect 
does not hibernate in these more northern portions of the cotton belt. 

Ill bis first letter from Tallabassee, February 28, we fiud tbe follow- 
ing : 

I would like to add that Dr. Anderson's assertion that he saw A. arf/iUacea flying 
during the warm spell in January is quite incorrect. The doctor, like Prof. 
E. A. Smith and myself, as well as others, saw only other Noctiiidn flying about the 
houses, and they almost exclusively belonged to a single very common species (I think 
it is Boarmia), which I find everywhere, under bark, in cracks in fences, flying during 
the warm hour.; of the day, at night, &c. Very often and in many places I heard the 
opinion that Aletia argiUacea hibernates as a moth, because it has been seen flying in 
warm evenings during the winter ; but I have never found a man who actually knows 
what Aletia argiUacea is among the flying moths. 

In bis second letter from Talbibassee, March 5, be writes as follows : 

After three months' travcdiug through cold and rain, I find here in Florida most 
glorious, warm weather, and during my stay in Tallahassee I did not loss a single day 



NOTES FROM TALLAHASSEE, FLA. 105 

by raiu. But I am sorry to say tliat notwithstanding all my efforts I liavo failed 
again to liud Aletia, althongli the country here looked very promising. 

The country in the vicinity of this city is very rolling, almost hilly, and numerous 
ponds, here called "beautiful lakes," are in the depressions; but there are no large 
creeks or rivers here. It is not at all a "bottom-land," but cotton is planted under 
various conditions: on top of the hills in sandy soils, on dry "hammock land," and on 
the edges of the jjonds. The growth of the plant is hei'e better than I have seen since 
leaving Bayou Sara. 

The cotton-worm makes its appearance here every year in largo numbers, and very 
early in the season ; several planters are positive of having seen the worm in the lat- 
ter part of May. In other words, here again is a district where it is more than prob- 
able that A. argiUacea is indigenous. The worms are injurious every year, as nothing 
is done here for their destruction except some occasional attempts with Paris green. 
The damage is never uuiforndy distributed, owing doubtless to the nature of the coun- 
try. In 1878 the worms injured only the cotton on the lower fields, but from contra- 
dictory statements I find it impossible to give the exact amount of damage done. 
When the owner of a field says that in 1878 the worms destroyedhis entire cotton crop, 
and his neighbor, speaking of the same field, asserts that the worms did but little 
harm, itis rather difficult to find out thetrnth. However, it is certain that in 1878 they 
had here a fair crop, amounting in average from three-fourths of a bale taoue bale per 
acre. 

This locality is most promising for the purpose of hunting A. arr/Ulacea ; as, with the 
exception of a few largo hammocks, hiding places for hibernation are not so abundant 
as in the other southernmost cotton districts which I have visited. Induced by my 
previous failure to find the imago of A. argillacea, and influenced somewhat by Dr. 
Anderson's assertion that four pupte had survived the cold weather of December, I 
spent considerable time in looking for pupie in places where they might liave foun^i 
accidental shelter. Such places are the gin-houses, and when the cotton fields run on 
a half-cleared hammock where numerous fallen leaves have accunnilated. But all 
the pupte found in such places were unfortunately either empty or frozen, and I did 
not even find parasites, although I found several pupiB from which the parasites had 
escaped. A number of eggs (I send them with this) which I found during a most 
careful exannnation of a gin-house do not appear to l)o those of Aletia. As at this 
season there is much plowing going on, I had ample opportunity to ctonvince myself 
that no pup.-B are in the ground. I offered a prize of five cents for each pupa brought to 
me, and received eight. All, however, were killed by the frost, and it is certain that 
not a single pupa of the number was found in the ground. One negro brought me a 
large Atlacus pupa as the "web" of the cotton-worm, and wished ten cents for it on 
account of its size. 

The few hammocks in the vicinity of Tallahassee are quite large, and, of course, are 
full of very tall, old trees, and a thorough exploration of them is out of the question. 

From Tallahassee Mr. Scliwarz proceeded to Savaiiuali, Ga., via 
Gaiuesv ille, Fla. In the latter place he found no trace of the cotton- 
moth. While at Savannah he visited Saint Simon's, one of the Sea 
Islands. Concerning the results he states : 

I am sorry to say that I have failed again to find ,any trace of Aletia anjillaeea, 
although these Sea Islands are most favoi-able for an investigation. The woods, half 
hammock and half pine woods, peculiar to the islands, are very open, and hollow trees, 
&c., are comijaratively scarce. 

From Savannah Mr. Schwarztook steamer to the Bahamas; and as an 
account of the results of this trip are given in Appendix I, further quo- 
tations from letters will be unnecessary. 

In considering the results of Mr. Schwarz's observations, it should be 



106 EEPORT UPON COTTON INSECTS. 

remembered that during the greater part of the time while he was in 
the field tlie weather was unusually cold, so that hibernating insects 
would not be lilcely to be out from their places of concealment ; and that, 
as Mr. Schwarz has well said, the failure to find the hiding place of the 
cotton-moth is not proof that the species does not hibernate, for he also 
failed to find in their winter quarters other insects which are very com- 
mon, and respecting the hibernation of which there is no doubt. 

Although we firmly believe (both from the a posteriori reasons, which 
will be given at length in the chapter on the theory of migrations, and 
from positive evidence to be soon brought forward) that the cotton- 
moth hibernates in some portions of the cotton belt of the United States, 
we have given these negative results at length, not merely for their 
purely scientific interest, but as furnishing valuable data to be used in 
making plans for the destruction of this pest. 

The undoubted positive evidence of the hibernation of this insect con- 
sists of a very limited number of observations ; for although we belicA'^e 
that some at least of the many planters who think they have observed 
the cotton-moth in midwinter and early spring are right, still the fact 
that in every instance when specimens of the moths observed have been 
sent to entomologists it has been found that some other species has been 
mistaken for Aletia argillacea prevents our accepting testimony of this 
kind. 

The following list comprises the names of those moths which have 
been most frequently sent to this department by persons believing them 
to be the cotton -moth : 

Phoheria atomarin (moth), Georgia. 
Hypena scabraUs (moth), Georgia. 
Leucnnia itnipuiicta (moth), Alabama. 
Drantcria ercchta, moth. 
Agrotis (several species). 

But we cannot doubt the statements of so accurate an observer as 
Mr. Thomas Affleck, who says, in his Southern Eural Almanac, 1851, 
pp. 49, 50 : 

On the 22(;1 of December last, 1849, I saw great numbers of the cotton-moth during 
the flusk of the evening flitting about the fence corners, dead trees which still retained 
their bark, and al)out certain sheds near this village— Washington, Miss. The weather 
■was and had l)eeu unseasonably warm. A few cool days followed, during which I 
could not find a single moth. But again, on the 27th or 28th of the same month, I 
saw them in equal numbers. I leave it to naturalists to say whether or no this settles 
the questicm of hibernation. It is ])ositive evidence, so far as it goes. Whether they 
continued to exist until the cotton plant was large enough to support their jirogeny 
I cannot say ; nor could I satisfy myself as to where they found shelter. 

Equally interesting are the observations of Mr. John T. Ilumphreys, 
late naturalist and entomologist to the State department of agriculture 
of Georgia, who says in a letter which we recently received from him : 

\st. That it hibernates in the chrjaaHs state. — This may be true of other "cut-worms" 
(which in some cases I doubt, while in others I know), but there is not the slightest 



FACTS ON HIBERNATION. 107 

warrant for any sucli supposition i u the history of A. argillacea Hilbn. This question I 
have subjected to the most crucial test, selecting 3,200 larva? and noting their change 
into the pupa state. I planted them in detached groups (as chrysalids), under differ- 
ent soils, and at different depths (the latter to do away with cavilings). Some I 
placed. iust beyond the frost-line, others at the line, and, again, others just above the 
Hue, (Was there ever a chrysalid foolish enough, when forced to bury itself under 
terra firma, to leave its work of protection half-way done?) In evertj inntanceihe ])upa- 
tion under ground was a failure. You well know how bewildered an ant becomes 
wheu its anteume are removed ; just so with A. artjilktcea when the chrysalis is en- 
tombed. I am giving you general outlines, which, I am sure Avill ai)pear plausible to 
you as an insect physiologist. Two of these moths (preserved in my cabinet) did 
actually burrow upwards from a depth of three inches, in soil that was quite loose and 
not compacted by the cold and the winds of winter (to say nothing of accidental pres- 
sure), and their wings were so much mutilated by their escape as to serve them no 
longer as instruments of flight. These exjjeriments, repeated over and over, have proven 
to me the impossibility of anything bordering upon a general pupation of A. argillacea 
under ground. 

2d. That it hibernates as a moth. — This is overwhelmingly true. Not under the leaf- 
less stalks of cotton, nor under the clods of dirt and rocks about them, but beneath 
the scales of pine trees in neighboring forests, in cotton-gin houses and elsewhere 
(particularly in the first-named), have I found the A. argillacea in numbers from 
December until May, wings perfect, no scale abrasions, and agility equal to that of 
any brood. I have found the moth in iron concretions not far from Cuthbert (Ran- 
dolph County, Georgia), in the vicinity of Burgess Mills. This curious contrast you 
may note en passant, while the first broods (May to June IG) invariably appear first in 
the hammock-growth bordered plantations, the moths of the last brood are found in 
midwinter principally amid the pine growths. On this point, however, I have no 
space to elaboi'ate. Your own reasoning will be as good as any one else. 

lu another letter Mr. Hiimplireys states : 

I found the moth {A. argillacea Hiibn) hibernating on Saint Simon's Island, Georgia, 
February, 187S, and near Brunswick at the same time. I also found it in Randolph 
County, Georgia, November 8, 187G. The hibernating moth has been seen in barns 
and cotton-gin sheds from November to May, in the counties along Chattahoochie 
River, Decatur, Early, Clay, and iuThomas, Brooks, Lowndes, on the Glynn (Atlantic) 
coast. 

And Professor Grote himself, in the paper in which he proposes the 
theory of migrations, says : 

The last brood of worms changed into chrysalids in myriads on the leafless stems, 
clinging by their few threads as best they might, and <lisclosed the moth in the face 
of the frost, many of the chrysalids perishing. Afterwards, on sunnj* winter days, I 
have noticed the live moth about giu-houses and fodder-stacks, or the negro quarters. 

Professor Grote adds : " Was this a true hibernation, or merely an 
accidental survival ? The locality and the condition seem to me alike 
artificial." It appears to us that just the conditions described may be 
found on any i:)lantation in the South, and that a few "accidental sur- 
vivals" are all that is necessary to perj)etuate the species in any locality. 
It has often been urged, by those who believe that the i^resence of the 
cotton- worm in our country is dependent upon the immigration of moths 
from other countries, that, did the species hibernate in our territory, 
the moths would be seen early in the spring. We believe that the only 
reason it has not been observed at that season of the year is that it 
occurs in small numbers and that very few observers have thoroughly 



108 REPORT UPON COTTON INSECTS. 

searched for it at that time. That moths are present and ovipositing 
on the cotton very soon after the young i)lauts emerge from the ground 
has already been shown in the section on the first appearance of the 
worms. 

Our conclusions are that the species does not hibernate as a pupa, 
but that in certain portions of our cotton belt the species does hibernate 
as a moth. The number of moths, however, which survive the winter 
is very small compared with the number of pupae of the last brood of 
the previous season. 

Itis probable thatof those moths which mature before frosts sufficiently 
heavy to destroy the pupjB occur, only the more vigorous individuals, 
and of them especially those which clioose unusually-protected situa- 
tions for their winter quarters, are able to survive the winter. 

As to localities in which the species hibernates, we conclude from the 
data drawn from a study of the past history of the insect that in the 
following-named i^laces the moth usually survives the winter: 

Texas. — Principally in the Colorado and Brazos bottoms, as far north 
as Grimes County and as far south as Victoria; occasionally as far 
north as Cherokee, possibly to Upshur, though not probable. 

Louisiana. — The southeastern parishes along the river — East and West 
Feliciana, East Baton Rouge, and Iberville; possibly Saint Landry, 
Avoyelles, Concordia and neighborhood. 

Mississipjji. — The soutliwestern counties, near the river — Wilkinson, 
Adams, Amite, &c. 

Alabama. — Principally in the "cane-brake" region; possibly in the 
southeastern counties, along the Chattahoochee. 

Florida. — Principally in those northern counties near the Appalachi- 
cola — Gadsden, Jackson, Leon, &c. ; possibly in adjoining cotton-growing 
counties. 

Georgia. — Southwestern counties — Decatur, &c., along the Flint and 
Chattahoochee ; in former years probably in the Sea Islands and coast 
counties. 



CHAPTER lY. 

THE THEORY OF MIGRATIONS OF THE MOTH. 

Although we have expressed our belief, in Chapter III that the cotton- 
worin hibernates as a moth in certain portions of the United States, we 
feel it important to give an account of the theory of migrations, which 
has plajed so j)rominent a part in the discussion repecting this insect. 
It should be stated that, although this theory is now held by but few 
people, among the number are those who rank high as entomologists 
and who have also had considerable experience in the study of this 
X)articular species. 

In order to give those who have proposed this theory due credit, we 
will state it in their own words. The earliest hint that we have found 
of the possibility that the cotton- worm may be brought frequently to 
this country from regions farther south, is contained in the following 
extract from a letter by Mr. Thomas Affleck, published in the American 
Agriculturist for November, 1840 (vol v., p. 342): 

The pupa is black or dark brown aud shiuing. From the moment it begins to spin 
until it issues from the x^njia a perfect moth is from eight to nine days of warm sea- 
sonable weather, bnt if unusually cool it extends to a longer period, even to weeks ; 
hence I am inclined to think that it is in the pupa state the insect is preserved over 
winter. In fact, there is no doubt that many are thus saved — the moths that are seen 
occasionally on a warm winter's day, having been hatched prematurelj^ by the unsea- 
sonable warmth of the weather, aud quickly perish Irom cold and want of food. Bat 
whether we at all times receive our supply from this source, or whether (which I think 
is quite as probable) thej^ are not unfrequently brought on a gale of wind from the 
West Indies, Mexico, or the coast of Guiana, will be difiScult to decide. My observa- 
tions lead me to the conclusion that after a steady cold winter we have the caterpillar 
early and in abundance ; and after a mild or warm one we have them, if at all, but 
partially aud late in the season. The pupa is frequently found during winter safely 
sheltered under a scale of bark, between two evergreen leaves, under the splinter of 
a fence-rail, or in a tuft of pine leaves. 

Early in the following year (1847) Dr. D. B. Gorham, having independ- 
ently arrived at the conclusion that we have an influx of the cotton-worm 
every year from more southern countries, published a i)aper on the sub- 
ject in De Bow's Eeview (vol. iii, pp. 535-543). We quote those parts 
of the paper referring to this theory : 

Let us now pass to the consideration of the cotton-fly, premising, however, before 
entering into an examination of this destructive little moth, that my remarks are in- 
tended less to enlighten others than to elicit information from some one who is better 
able to inform the public mind on this interesting subject. As for myself, I must con- 
fess that my limited observations do not justify me in coming to any positive conclu- 
sions, and have by no means satisfied my curiosity ; but my information, such as it is, 
I give in the following pages, with the hope that however imperfect it may prove in 

109 



110 REPORT UPON COTTON INSECTS. 

the main, yet that some mite of information maybe gleaned from it. It is impossible 
to think for a moment that this species of moth has escaped the observation of ento- 
mologists, for the plant npon which it feeds to the absolute exclusion of all others 
(being the great staple production of many countries) must have brought it into notice 
at various times and at various places. From its univorous nature (to coin a word) it 
must have been coeval with and inseparable from the existence of the cotton j^lant. 
My principal motive for broaching this subject is on account of the frequent remark 
made and fears entertained that the army-worm would become an annual plague. But 
seine I have investigated their nature, I have come to the conclusion that these fears 
are groundless, and that the cotton-fly can never become naturalized in our climate. 

The first irruption, as I am informed by an old planter, that this insect made on 
the cotton fields of Louisiana was about the year 1820, when its progress was marked 
with the same utter destruction of the cotton crop as in the subsequent years of 
their appearance. It then disappeared until 1840, a period of twenty years. There is 
something singular and unaccoiintable in the periods of this insect, something vastly 
different from the periodicities of others which we find with us, for they appear to be 
governed by some fixed laws ; the most of them are annual, very few biennial. Now, 
the grasshojiper, house-fly, and mosquito may be looked for at the return of summer 
with as much confidence and certainty as we look for the revolutions of the seasons. 
The Cicada scptcndeccm never fails to make his appearance once in seventeen years. 
But who can tell whether the cotton-fly will appear next year or fifty years hence ? 
No scourge, whether under the form of a devouring insect or that of a malignant dis- 
ease, ever became annual in one particular place. Look at the locust of Egypt ; sup- 
pose that A'oracions insect to become annual, the prolific valley of the Nile, once the 
granary of Asia and Europe, would become a howling desert. Look at the plague 
that devastates sometimes Smyrna and Constantinople; did the cause of that distem- 
per act with the like intensity at each return of the season, those flourishing cities 
would long since have been numbered with Thebes and Memphis. Let the cholera 
or yellow-fover prevail in New Orleans every year as it has at times, and that great 
emporium of the Southwest would become a puny village. Is there not an invisible 
hand that sways the destinies of the world: a hand that stays the devastations of 
plague, pestilence, and famine ? The cotton-fly belongs to that numerous class of in- 
sects kuoAvn to naturalists under the term of phalena or moth tribe. The following 
are its specific characters, without the technicalities made use of by the naturalist, 
80 far as they could well be avoided. ♦ -. * 

During the present year, the time that my observations commenced for the first 
time, till' cotton-fly again made its appearance in the latter part of August, at first 
making but little progress, but about the middle of September their numbers increased 
so prodigiously that in many instances they would eat over a field of several hundred 
acres in four or eight days. The number of eggs deposited by the female is uncertain ; 
they are smaller than a mustard seed, and always deposited on the under surface of 
the leaf during the night; iu a few days their eggs hatch. The worm, at first a mi- 
nute living point, falls immediately to work to devour the leaf. Its growth is rapid, 
for its labors cease not night or day until it arrives at maturity; it then winds itself 
up into a leaf by means of a web resembling a cohveJ), casts its skin, and changes into 
a chrysalis, in which state it remains ten days, then it bursts the thin walls of the 
chrysalis and comes forth a perfect insect. In turn, it begins the work of reproduc- 
tion, deposits its eggs, and in ten more days it dies. 

Thus iu every ten days there is an additional generation, and they go on increasing 
ad infinilum. As soon as the leaves were consumed in a field this great army took up 
its march — some in search of comfortable quarters where they might repose from 
their labors, others on a foraging expedition replenish the means of their subsist- 
ence. They first took shelter in the first leaf they met with, but generally they 
proceeded as far as tlie fence, a barrier beyond which they never traveled, where they 
found a plentiful supply of leaves in which they enveloped themselves. The second 



DR. gorham's paper. Ill 

division extended their marcli ranch fartlier, sometimes traveling half a mile fi'om the 
point wlience they started, perishing by cart-loads for the want of food and the many 
casualties to which their journey subjected them, such as carriage- wheels, heat of the 
sun, and the rapacity of birds. 

Here, then, it would appear was an end of the cotton-worm for a season at least, 
for those which yet remain in chrysalis in the fence-corners will change to the liy in 
ten days. But where are now the cotton leaves upon which the pregnant female is to 
deposit her eggs ? There is not one left. If they are placed on any other leaf the eggs 
may hatch, but the worm must perish, as we have just seen them perishing by my- 
riads while wending their way throiigh a varioiis and luxuriant herbage in search of 
that food intended for them by nature. In ten days from the time that the worm be- 
comes a chrysalis on the borders of the cotton fields a host of flies are seen issuing 
therefrom ; they go forth in search of food for their forthcoming progeny. Now it 
is to be found their days are numbered; in ten more, if they meet with no cotton 
leaves, they themselves must die, and thus ptit an end to the whole race. But their 
search is continued, and now when the weary insect is ready to finish its term of days, 
a tender but sparse foliage crowns the leafless twigs of the cotton plant ; on them the 
eggs are deposited ; they hatch, the worm eats, returns again to its chrysalis. The 
cotton stalk still puts forth new leaves, they grow and expand until the fields again 
look green ; ten days, aye, forty, elapse, yet there is not a worm to be found. One 
would have thought that this second crop of leaves would scarcely have been sufficient 
for a single repast for them, yet the food that they so lately devoured with such vora- 
ciousness is now left untouched. What is the matter? Why don't they eat; their 
food is spread before them ? Read on, the answer will be found in the sequel. Let 
us examine the cause. la nearly every fourth leaf we find a chrysalis writhing and 
contorting itself at the touch. Ah, here is the explanation of the difficulty, this is no 
ten days' chrysalis, but tha*: in which it is to hibernate, possibly for one winter, per- 
chance for twenty. Let ns take a pocketful of these home and place them beneath 
tumblers, and wait patiently to see what they will i^roduce. If I had found a treas- 
ure my delight could not have been greater than that I experienced at the idea of 
unraveling this mystery. But man is prone to disappointment, as wo shall soon see. 
About the loth of November the insect appeared, but, mirabile dicta, as different from 
the cotton-fly as it is possible to suppose one insect could differ from another. It be- 
longed altogether to a different family, a description of which I give as follows : 

Now, it is evident from its specific character, as well as from its parasitic nature, 
this insect belongs to that numerous class called ichneumons, of which there are up- 
wards of five hundred species. As I am not at present in possession of any practical 
work on entomology, I cannot determine the species of this ichneumon ; but to show 
that it difters in some respects from the family to which it belongs, I will quote a 
paragraph from a work before me, in which are set forth some peculiarities belong- 
ing to that class of insects as a genus : 

"The whole of this singular genus have been denominated parasitical, on account 
of the very extraordinary manner in which they provide for the future support of 
their young. The fly feeds on the honey of flowers, and, when about to lay her eggs, 
perforates the body of some other insect, or its larvie Avith its sting or instrument at 
the end of the abdomen, and then deposits them. The eggs in a few days hatch, and 
the young larvaj, which resemble minute white maggots, nourish themselves with the 
juices of the foster parent, which, however, continues to move about and feed until 
near the time of its changing into a chrysalis, when the larvte of the ichneumon 
creep out by perforating the skin in various places, and, each spinning itself up in a 
small oval silken case, changes into a chrysalis, and after a certain period they 
emerge in the state of complete ichneumons." 

It Avill be seen that there is a peculiarity attached to this ichneumon not include i 
in the above description : that of appropriating the chrysalis as well as the larvse. < f 
other insects to the use of their young. All ichneumons that I cact read of sp:'n 
their own chrysalis, but this is the prince of parasites, for not content with eating the 



112 REPORT UPON COTTON INSECTS. 

substance of liis neighbor, he seizes also on his house. So far as I have read concern- 
ing tliis curious family of insects, this is a nondescript. As an example of these in- 
sects called ichneumons, I may mention the Ichneumon seductor, or dirt-dauber, well 
known to everybody as that wasp-like insect which builds its clay houses on the walls, 
and particularly in the recesses of windows, to the great annoyance of the tidy house- 
wife. 

Tims is answered the question why the cotton-fly did not again eat up the scant 
foliage which subsequently appeared on the stalks. This little usiirper goes forth in 
search of whom he may devour, and as soon as he finds a house built and well pro- 
visioned, he seizes upou it for his posterity, which he does in the following manner: 
When he finds a cotton- worm, he pierces it with the instrument with which its tail is 
armed, aiul deposits au egg ; the cotton-worm soon spins itself up into its case, there 
to await the period of its perfection, which never arrives, for soon the egg of the 
ichneumon hatches, and falls to devouring his helpless companion. This work of ex- 
termination continues until there is not a vestige of the cotton-fly left. I venture to 
say, while I am now writing (1st of December), there is not an egg, chrysalis, or fly 
in the confines of the United States. 

My speculations on the nature and habits of the fly liave led me to adopt the fol- 
lowing hypothesis : That it is a native of tropical climates, and never can pass a 
single winter bej'ond them, consequently never can become naturalized in the United 
States, or anywhere else where the cotton plant is not perennial, for nature has made 
no provision by which they can survive more than ten or twelve days; therefore they 
must perish wherever the cotton plant i)erishes during a period of six mouths. That 
wherever they have prevailed in our cotton-growing regions, it is when they have be- 
come very numerous, and consumed all the cotton in their native climes, and then go 
in search of their food in more northern climates. It is not to be presumed that this 
happens often, but the same remark will hold in regard to the cottou-lly as it will to 
many other insects, that owing to some unknown cause they become exceedingly nu- 
merous, but at long and irregular intervals. The locust has already been noticed as 
an example, and many more might be cited. I, however, will mention another to which 
I was an eye-witness. About eighteen years ago the f/recn or blow flu became so numer- 
ous that thousands of animals ])erished by them, also some human beings. The least 
spot of blood, the nu)isture of the mouth, eyes, or nose, was sufficient to cause a de- 
posit of eggs. Sick persons, particularly those who had not proper attention, sutfered. 
Several negro children whocameundermynoticefellasacrificetothem, audit was with 
difficulty that many others were saved. In these instances the fly deposited the eggs 
within the nostrils, where they soon caused death by producing inflammation of the 
brain. This fly is annual, and scarcely ever deposits its eggs on an anihial, except it 
be the victim of a running sore, but at the period alluded to above it api^eared that 
there was scarcely animal flesh enough to feed the maggots of thi« numerous host. 
It is but once within my recollection that I have witnessed this phenomenon, and 
neither before nor since have I heard of such ravages of the green fly. Why they 
should have existed in such incredible numbers at the time referred to is a question 
not to be easily answered 

There are three circumstances upon which I found my arguments in support of my 
hypothesis of the cottou-fly : First. Nature has made no provision by which it could 
survive the winter season. Second. The irregularity of their appearance. Third. 
Their progress from south to north and from west to east. 

It may be remarked on proposition first, that all insects included within the genus 
phaltna hibernate in the state of a chrysalis, therefore it is utterly impossible for 
the cotton-fly to hibernate in that manner, as they remain but ten days in chrysalis. 
The fly does not hibernate, for the period of their existence is but ten or twelve days. 
It cannot be in the state of the egg, for it is a law equally inflexible with regard to 
^his tribe, that the egg must be deposited on the leaf on which the larva? are to feed, 
and the reason is very plain, for these larvie, when first hatched, are minute living 



DR. Burnett's paper. 113 

points of ail exceedingly helpless nature, almost devoid of locomotion, or possessing it 
in too small a degree to enable it to go in search of food. But let us suppose that the 
egg does not survive the winter; how does it happen that when the worm first makes 
its appearance it is found on the very summits of the cotton instead of the lower 
branch ? parts that it would reach the soonest if it proceeded from the ground upwards. 

The 2)haleHa mori, or silkworm, is an insect of the same genus as the cotton-fly, and 
whose habitudes are very much the same as the latter, tropical in its nature, confining 
itself to a particular vegetable, the diflerent species of mulberry, and being short-lived 
in the chrysalis, remaining in this state but fifteen days. At the approach of winter, 
when the mulberry trees cast their leaves and remain leafless for many months, these 
insects, in our climate, would all perish, were they left to themselves. But art in this 
respect has triumphed over nature, for the silk- grower at a certain season gathers a 
parcel of eggs and places them in a cold dark place until the mulberry tree shall again 
aflford them food iu the spring, and in this manner they are j)erpetuated, and this is 
the only possible way that they could be preserved here ; they are like some tender 
exotic, which flourishes as long as the warmth of the hot-house aftords it a congenial 
atmosphere, but perishes if left to buffet the rigors of winter. 

Proposition second : Here I contend that when an insect is a native of or naturalized 
iu any country they are always governed by some invariable laws which determine 
their appearance. The grasshopper is annual, coming every sj)ring or summer ; the 
locust of our climate sejitem-decennial, appearing once in seventeen years; but the 
cottou-fly has no regular periods of return, showing that when it reaches our climate 
it is by some casualty. 

In proposition third, I maintain that if the cotton-fly sojourned here during the 
winter or winters, when it did appear at all it would do so simultaneously through 
the whole cotton district, instead of which we see it progressing regularly from south 
to north and from west to east. 

Such are the speculations that I have entertained concerning the cotton-worm, from 
which I conclude that it originates in South America, and reaches us through Mexico, 
and never can become a denizen of our soil. 

Dr. Gorhain's article excited considerable interest. It was republished 
in several iirominent Soutliern journals, and elicited a number of an- 
swers. We have been able to find no evidence, however, that the theory 
was accepted at that time by any writer on the subject. 

Seven years later (March 17, 1853) a communication from Dr. W. I. 
Burnett, entitled " The Cotton- worm of the Southern States," was read 
before the Boston Society of Natural History.* In this communication 
the theory of migrations was again proposed. In this instance the the- 
orist evidently based his conclusions on a small amount of evidence, as 
is shown by the first paragraph of the following quotation, and the state- 
ment in the third paragraph that he had seen the insect only in the 
larva state. We quote Dr. Burnett's paper entire : 

During the past winter I have been collecting materials for the history of that most 
devastating of American insects, the cotton-worm. In this I have been aided and 
favored by several intelligent Southern planters, whose severe losses from the ravages 
of this animal have made them keenly alive to many of its habits and modes of life. 
Of these gentlemen, I am particularly indebted to Mr. Robert Chisolm, of Palmetto 
Hal], Beaufort, S. C, an intelligent and extensive cotton planter, who has with much 
care watched the economy of this insect during several of its later appearances. He 
has sent me several commuuications, from which, together with an examination of the 

* Published in 1854, Proc. Boston Soc. Nat. Hist., iv, p. 316. 
8CI 



114 REPORT UPON COTTON INSECTS. 

larval specimens with which they were accompanied, I have been able to prepare the 
following account : 

This insect appears to be but little known in science, although the injury to property 
which it causes is perhaps greater and more deplorable than that occasioned by any 
other with which we are acquainted. On the years of its appearance, the entire cotton 
crop of certain districts is often cut short, and in not a few instances single plantations 
have suffered to the amount of from ten to fifteen thousand dollars. 

It is one of the span-worms or Geometridae, belonging to the same family of insects 
as the canker-worm, which is so much feared by horticulturists of the North. 

I have as yet only seen the larva. It is not indigenous to the Southern States, and 
there is no evidence that it can live naturally north of the shores of Texas. Most 
probably it is a native of Brazil or some other equatorial climate in that vicinity, for 
it is so sensitive to tlie cold as to quickly die in an atmosphere even approaching the 
freezing point. It apjiears, then, on the Southern cotton fields always as in migration, 
coming suddenly like a foreign enemy and always selecting the most thrifty planta- 
tions. It is very remarkable, therefore, that it should appear regularly at intervals of 
every three years in the same districts, striking first the seaboard and progressing 
gradually inland as circumstances may favor. But equally remarkable in this connec- 
tion is the fact that its most extensive and deplorable ravages occur always after inter- 
vals of twenty-one years, or every seventh time of its advent, as shown in the years 
1804, 1825, and 1846 during the last half century. These facts are inexplicable, unless 
referable to some peculiar conditions of their economy in their native land. Little is 
known from what southern direction they come, for, like all insects of this family 
their movements are made at night, and the seaboard planter often rises in the morn- 
ing to find whole sections of his plantations covered with the adult insects busily en- 
gaged in depositing their eggs on the tender leaves of the cotton. There is, however, 
no regularity in the exact month of their coming, for Mr. Chisolm says that on his 
plantations they came in 1840 quite early, but in 1843 much later, and remained until 
frost ; in 1846, in June, and in 1849 and 1852 in August. 

The cotton-caterpillar is nearly always accompanied directly by another insect, 
called the boll-worm (probably one of the Noctuidae), which confines its attacks to the 
immature lint and seeds of the green pods of the short-stapled variety of cotton ; and, 
as short cotton is mostly cultivated in sections farther south than those of the long- 
stapled variety, this boll-worm is generally seen in Texas and Mississippi six weeks 
or so before the cotton-caterpillar proper appears on the coast of Georgia and South 
Carolina. Little is known of its habits more than this ; for its ravages are compara- 
tively so inconsiderable that it attracts scarcely any attention of the planter. Its 
concomitancy with the true cotton-worm, however, is not a little remarkable, and 
there is no doubt that it belongs to a different family of insects. 

The cotton-insect having made its apiiearance, shows considerable sagacity in always 
seeking first the most luxuriant fields. The eggs, which are of a dull white color, are 
deposited singly, or at most in twos, on the under surface of the most tender leaves. 
Their period of incubation is quite short, being six or seven days, and the time of 
hatching is always after sunset or in tlie night. They then begin to feed ravenously, 
and grow in proportion, their attacks being always confined to the long-stapled vari- 
ety when accessible, though, when hard pushed, they will eat the short variety ; but 
never anything else ; and if their numbers are disproportionate in excess to the cot- 
ton at hand, they will die of starvation rather than touch any other vegetable. 

During their caterpillar state they are almost wholly iinaffected by all changes in 
the weather, excepting cold; for the heaviest rains and the severest gales of wind do 
not stay their movements or prevent in the least their devastations. Mr. Chisolm 
says that a very violent hurricane of two or three hours' duration, which swept over 
his plantations in August last, made no impression whatever on their progress. If, 
however, there occurs even a slight frost they are killed throughout. These circum- 
stances are worthy of mention, as bearing upon their probable tropical origin. Their 



MR. grote's paper. 115 

larval state is of about ten days' duration, and, during tliis time, they moult two or 
tbree times, cliaugiug tlieir colors and general appearance in the same singular man- 
ner as the canker-worm of the North. The caterpillar, when full-grown and well fed, 
ia sixteen legged, of the size of a common crow-quill, and from an inch and a quarter 
to an inch and a half in length. It has a reddish head, is whitish below, and brown- 
ish black above ; on each side are two longitudinal, wavy white lines, and another 
straight on the middle of the back. When ready to wind up they swing down from 
the cotton plant, and, without any choice, take up indififerently with the nearest ob- 
jects, on which they may rest during this process. Their chrysalid state continues 
about twelve days ; the moths then appear and immediately go about depositing their 
eggs, after which they die. This perfect state lasts only four or five days. Such ia 
tlie routine of their reproduction. When they appear early in the season, there are 
usually three broods ; but some years they come so late that only a single new gener- 
ation is seen. In either case the last brood almost invariably perishes throughout, 
being either killed instantly by the frost or dying from starvation, having eaten all 
the cotton before their transformations take place. It follows, therefore, that these 
ravaging insects as they appear in the cotton fields of the South do so at the loss of 
that portion of their race, for they leave no progeny behind them. At the same time 
this condition of things makes the matter the more deplorable for the planter, for, as 
he has to contend with a suddenly invading foe from foreign parts, he is rendered 
wholly powerless in averting this regularly periodical destruction of property. 

Dr. Burnett's statement of the theory, being published in a purely sci- 
entific journal of limited circulation in the South, seems to have failed 
to attract much attention, as we have been unable to find it mentioned 
in any of the agricultural journals of that time. Neither do we find any 
reference to a theory of migrations until nearly twenty years later, when 
Mr. A. E. Grote, in an article in the Rural Carolinian for November, 
1871, incidentally made the following statement : 

The question with us has been, where does the first brood come from ? The Novem- 
ber chrysalises all became moths during warmer days, or were finally destroyed by 
frost or the process of cultivation. On sunny winter days a few of the hibernating 
moths were seen about fodder stalks. But before the young cotton was large enough 
to furnish food in the next spring, our cotton- worm had entirely disappeared, nor could 
we find it in any stage. We always hear of it southwardly from us. We know that 
the southerly winds bring the moth. Indeed, Professor Packard writes us that ho has 
found the moth as far north as the coast of Massachxisetts. Out of sight of land off 
Charleston we ourselves have seen numbers of cut-worm moths flying about the ship, 
blown from the shore. 

It was not, however, until August, 1874, at the Hartford meeting of 
the American Association for the Advancement of Science, that Mr. 
Grote put forth the theory in a definite form. Mr. Grote's conclusions 
were based upon observations made during a residence of several years 
in Central Alabama, and were published, like those of his predecessors, 
without any knowledge of earlier writings on the subject. We see here 
the strange i^henomenon of a scientific theory being independently de- 
veloped and proposed four times in a little more than a quarter of a cen- 
tury. 

We will quote only that part of Mr. Grote's paper which refers to this 
theory : 

It is the object of the present paper to throw, happily, some light on the biography 
of the cotton-worm as it occurs in the Southfiru States, and in so doing I think it will 



116 REPORT UPON COTJ'OX INSECTS. 

Tjecome apparent that Prof. C. V. Riley has regarded the same subject from au erro- 
neous stand-point, having considered the cotton-worm as belonging to our fauna, and 
accordingly misunderstood its economy as displ.ayed with us and far from its natural 
abode. And here, while I am obliged to differ on a scieutitic question with Professor 
Riley, I bear willing testimony to the great good achieved by the publication of the 
Missouri Reijorts. 

The Aletia argiUacea, or cotton-worm, is an insect belonging to the Noctute, a group 
of nocturnal moths. It is one of a number of intertropical or Southern forms, some- 
what nearly allied to our more thickly-scaled and Northern genus Plusia. The cater- 
pillar is a "'half-looper," to use a common term, and the chrysalis is held within an 
exceedingly loose web on the plant, the few threads usually binding over the edge of 
the leaf, and of themselves furnishing no adequate protection to the pupa. (I here 
exhibit to the association specimens of the larva, pupa, and moth of Aletia.) Techni- 
cal descriptions of the different stages are already extant, and so may be passed over 
here. The more immediate question for our solution is the consecutive history of the 
insect, so that we may be prejjared to offer suggestions to the agriculturists for it» 
destruction. 

The region over which, during five seasons, I have observed the cotton-worm, em- 
braces the central portion of the cotton belt in the States of Georgia and Alabama, 
and in particular the counties of Marengo and Greene, lying along the Tombigbeeand 
Black Warrior Rivers. There cotton is planted in March and April, blooms in June 
and July, and perishes in November or with the frost. The earliest period at which 
I have noticed the young worm was the last week in June, and its iisual appearance 
was in July, sometimes as late as the latter part of the month. Its date of appear- 
ance was irregular, and never accurately coincided iu any two seasons. Sometimes 
it seemed as though we were " not (joiiir/ to have any worm at all this year," a remark 
suggested by hope and the tardiness of its advent. My observations have been mainly 
directed to the question of the origination of the first brood, and have led me to re- 
cord the following results : I have observed that the a^ipearance of the worm in the 
fields was always heralded by flights of the moth, which came to light in houses at least 
a week before the worm was noticed on the plants. I have observed that the distri- 
bxition of the first Virood was irregular, the worms occurring here and there over miles 
of country, Avhile infesting some plantations, skipping unaccountably others, Avhich 
the second brood, however, seldom failed to reach. I have noticed that the worm was 
always heard of to the southward at first, and never to the northward, of any given 
locality in the cotton belt. Finally, after diligent search, no traces of the insect iu 
any stage could be found by me during the months lyrecedinf) the appearance of the 
first brood heralded by the moth, and after the cotton was above the ground. The 
broods themselves were consecutive and without interruption so long as the condi- 
tions were favorable. The last brood, in years where the worm was numerous, eat 
up every portion of the plant that was at all soft, flowers, the persistent calj'x, 
the very young ball, the terminal shoots. The last brood of worms changed into 
chrysalides in myriads on the leafless stems, clinging by their few threads as best they 
might, and disclosed the moth iu the face of the frost, many of the chrysalides per- 
ishing. Afterwards, on sunny winter daj's, I have noticed the live moth about gin- 
houses and fodder stacks, or the negro quarters. Was this a true "hibernation," or 
merely an accidental snrA-ival ? The locality and the condition seem to me alike arti- 
ficial. 

Now, HUbner describes the moth of the cotton-worm at first as from Bahia. Suffi- 
cient testimony to the identity of our insect with one destructive to the West Indian, 
Mexican, and Brazilian perennial cotton is at hand, and the fact is established. In a 
classificatory j)oint of view the affinities of the cotton-worm are with Southern rather 
than Northern forms of its family, as I have already pointed out. The conclusion to 
which I have come with regard to the cotton-worm is that it dies out every year (with it» 
food plant), that it occurs in the cotton belt of the Southern States, and that its next appear- 
ance is the result of immiyration. Testimony is at hand to show that for many years 



MR. grote's paper. 117 

after the cultivatiou of the cottou plant was iutrodiiced into the Southern States, the 
cotton-worm never appeared. The date at which it lirst appeared in central Alabama 
has been differently stated to me, but it evidently but little preceded the late war. 
That the moth is capable of sustaining long and extended flight is readily proven. 
Professor Packard observed the moth off the coast of the Eastern States, as also Mr. 
Burgess. I have observed the moth in October in Buffalo, N. Y., as also Dr. Harvey. 
According to Mr. Riley the moth has been observed in Chicago, I presume in the fall. 
It seems that the moth follows the coast-line northward, as also the water-courses 
that empty into the Gulf of Mexico. It is note worth j^ here that the water-shed of the 
Ohio and Mississippi extends to within fifty miles of Buffalo. As an example of the 
prolonged flight of moths, I will state that I have observed in the Gulf Stream, off 
the Carolinas, and out of sight of laud, in the month of August, large numbers of a 
moth, the Agrotis annexa of Treitschke. 

Again, I have been struck by the absence of parasitic checks to the cotton-worm 
in the South. I could never discover any, although such may exist. Spreading, as I 
"believe it to do, as a moth, the absence of peculiar parasites to the worm may be 
reasonably accounted for. I have already and elsewhere pointed out, that in order to 
make the first brood of the cotton-worm the progeny of the so-called "hibernating" 
individuals (as Professor Riley would suppose), a period of several months had to be ac- 
■counted for, since these " hibei'nating " moths could not wait till midsummer to de- 
posit their eggs ; and while the cotton is young, and even before it is up, iusect life 
is active, and the weather is warm and other vegetation fully out in the region of 
the South where I have lived. There is also no reason to believe that the cotton- 
worm ever breeds in the North, and this, notwithstanding Professor Riley's sugges- 
tions to the contrary in the sixth report before mentioned. The worm never has been 
noticed on any other plant than the cotton, and in the South perishes by thousands 
rather than eat any other. The habit of wandering in masses when food fails is a 
proof of this, as while the worm is supplied with cotton-leaf it never quits the plant, 
transforming to the chrysalis on the stalk which has furnished it nutriment. The 
wandering habit is not normal, but accidental, and the worm is not "gregarious" 
like the " tent caterpillar." Its " hibernation" with us must also be regarded as acci- 
dental, or at least as ban'en of results. For when sprmgs comes the Aletia argillacea 
lias vanished, and is not found with the hibernating species of Lepidoptera renewedly 
.active. And if it WCT'e found in February and March, it would find no cotton plants 
upon which to deposit its eggs. If oviposition ever takes place in thesfe months in 
the cotton belt, the young cotton, free from worms, disproves its efiicacy. 

It is possible that in the southern portions of Texas, or the Floridian peninsula, the 
Aletia may sustain itself during the entire year ; I have no means of information on 
this point. My observations are made on its occurrence over the central and principal 
portions of the cotton belt, and into which I believe it to be imported rfe novo every 
season that it there occurs and from more southern regions. I conclude, therefore, 
that while the cotton plant is not indigenous^to the Southern States (where it becomes 
an annual), the cotton-worm moth may be considered not a denizen, but a visitant, 
brought by various causes to breed in a strange region, and that it naturally dies out 
with us in the cottou belt, unable to suit itself as yet to the altered economy of its food- 
plant and to contend with the changes of our seasons. When this fact is comprehended 
it will simplify the process of artificial extermination b,y limiting the period during 
which we can successfully attack the cotton-worm, and by doing away with a certain 
class of proposed remedies. From the foregoing it will be evident that, 1, the arti- 
£cial agent employed to destroy the cotton-worm must be employed against the first 
brood as it appears in any given locality during the jirogressiou of the moth north- 
ward ; and, 2, that in order to be effectual, a concerted action in the application of 
the remedial, agent in any given locality will be found necessary. 

Before entering upon any discussion of the theory of migration let us 
•examine the data upon which the theorists have based their conclusions. 



118 REPORT UPON COTTON INSECTS. 

Eespecting Mr. Affleck's statements, there is but little to be said except 
in praise of the accuracy of his observations. Had there been in the 
South many observers of insects as careful as he was, the mooted points 
respecting the life history of the cotton-worm would have been cleared 
uj) long" ago. His observations are of peculiar interest to us, when we 
remember that he was not a professional naturalist, but simply a very 
industrious and observing jilanter, who did all he could to advance the 
best methods of agriculture. 

Mr. Affleck observed that while this insect remained only eight or 
nine days in the pupa state during the summer, as the season ad 
vanced it underwent its transformations much more slowly, and he 
very naturally concluded that the species hibernated as a pupa. But 
after trying experiments upon pupae, and observing the moths flying 
during the winter, he changed his views, and published in his almanac 
for 1851 his belief that the species hibernated as a moth. Although Mr. 
Affleck does not state distinctly the reasons for his belief that the moths^ 
"are not unfrequently brought on a gale of wind from the West Indies, 
Mexico, or the coast of Guiana," a careful study of his paper leads us ta 
infer that he believed that during warm winters the moths emerged 
prematurely and were all destroyed by the cold ; and that following such 
winters the worms were unusually late in making their appearance, their 
presence being dependent upon an influx of moths from regions farther 
south. It is an interesting fact, in this connection, that many planters 
have a theory just the opposite of this. They believe that as the insect 
was originally a tropical one it is unable to endure unusually severe 
winters; and they state that the seasons following such winters are not 
likely to be marked by extensive ravages of this pest. 

In Dr. Gorhara's article we find abundant meterial, if it were reliable* 
for the complete establishment of the theory of migrations. First, as to 
the "periods of this insect." Although there are many instances of a 
locality escaping severe ravages of this pest for many years, still we find 
liublished accounts of its appearance in destructive numbers in some 
portion of the cotton belt every year since 1825, and of numerous in- 
stances prior to that date, though from insufficiencj^ of records we can- 
not state positively that it occurred every year from the time of its first 
appearance in our country. Hence, even if it did entirely disappear from 
some iiortions of the cotton belt, it is not necessary to suppose that those 
sections have been restocked by immigrations from foreign countries, at 
least since 1825. The principal argument, however, upon which Dr. 
Gorham based his theory, was the supposition that A. argillacea never 
remains more than ten days in either pupa or adult state, and conse- 
quently could not survive the winter season. We have shown in Chap- 
ter III, that the length of time required for this insect to complete its^ 
transformations varies greatly; that it may remain a month in the pupa 
state ; and that it is known to remain several months in the adult state. 
Dr. Gorham's illusions resi)ecting those points furnish good evidence- 



DISCUSSION OF MIGRATIONS. 119 

that he had not read Mr. Affleck's statement of the theory. Dr. Gor- 
liam had still another reason for his conclusions which was in itself 
sufficient to prove the theory. He collected pupae late in the season, 
and finding that all of them were parasitized he concluded that the 
entire fall brood had been destroyed by parasites. From the descrip- 
tion which Dr. Gorham published of the parasite, it is evident that it 
was Pimpla conquisitor. His account of its operations is very interest- 
ing, being, we believe, the first published notice of any parasite infest- 
ing the cotton- worm. And the fact that this Ichneumon infests the last 
brood of A. argillacea to a very great extent has been confirmed by 
the experience of the past year. Still many papse of this brood do es- 
cape; and we therefore infer that Dr. Gorham made his collections 
late in the season after the unparasitized individuals had emerged 
from the pupa state, and before the parasites themselves had completed 
their development. 

The data upon which Dr. Burnett founded his theory were very in- 
sufficient. It is surprising that a man of his scientific attainments 
should have proposed a theory simply upon the statements of an un- 
trained observer. For there is no evidence that Dr. Burnett ever studied 
the subject in the field ; although, as we learn from the notice of his life, 
written by the late Professor Wyman,* he passed several winters in the 
South. Each of the three reasons which Dr. Burnett brings forward as 
proof of the truth of his theory has already been shown to be a mistaken 
idea. The insect, in the adult state at least, is not "so sensitive to the 
cold as to quickly die in an atmosphere even approaching the freezing- 
point." It does not appear only " at intervals of every three years." 
Neither does the pest appear first upon the seaboard and progress 
gradually inland. 

In the case of Mr. Grote we find the first instance among those who 
have proposed the theory of migrations, of a writer who is both a trained 
entomologist of high standing, and one who based his conclusions on 
extended personal observations in the field. It is also worthy of note 
that Mr. Grote's researches were made In one of the localities which has 
suffered most from the ravages of the cotton- worm, and one in which, 
as we have already Indicated, we believe the species to hibernate. For 
these reasons Mr. Grote's essay In i^artlcular should be carefully studied 
by one treating of the theory of migrations. Such study taken In con- 
nection with what Is now known respecting the first appearance of the 
worms In the spring will, we believe, reveal the fact that Mr. Grote's 
observations were not made, as he supposed, upon the first brood, but 
upon the brood to which we have referred as the first crop, i. e. the 
second brood, or In some cases the third brood. The statement that 
"the earliest i^erlod at which I'have noticed the young worm was the 
last week in June, and its usual appearance was in July, sometimes as 
late as the latter part of the month" Is sufficient to prove this. For we 



*Proc. Bost. Soc. Nat. Hist. V. 65. 



120 REPORT UPON COTTON INSECTS. 

have shown iu the chapter on Natural History that the first brood is 
developed in May, as soon as the cotton plants furnish sufficient food. 
And there is no doubt in our opinion that the moths, which Mr. Grote 
observed to be attracted to light iu houses in June or July and which 
he supposed "heralded" the appearance of the first brood of worms, 
had been developed the same season in neighboring cotton fields. It 
will be remembered that all eflbrts to obtain moths in the early part of 
the past season failed, though the presence of full-grown worms on 
cotton in the latter part of May indicated that moths had visited the 
fields several weeks earlier. It is not strange that Mr. Grote failed to 
observe the larvae of the first brood ; for, doubtless, he was led by the 
universal testimony of the planters to expect them at a much later sea- 
son than that at which they occur. Moreover, it is not an easy task to 
find the larvae in May, even when a person is looking for them, they 
occur in such small numbers. Mr. Grote is also mistaken in supposing 
that worms are always reported southward of any given locality before 
they are found north of it ; as a study of the past history shows, it has 
not been an uncommon thing for cotton-worms to be reported in Central 
Alabama earlier than in the southern part of the State. As to the sup- 
posed absence of parasitic checks we will simply refer to our remarks 
on Dr. Gorham's paper, and to the chapter on Natural Enemies, where 
the subject is discussed at length. 

It seems to us that when we have weighed carefully the data upon 
which the theorists have based their conclusions, there remains but lit- 
tle reason for a discussion of the theory. All the supposed facts which 
have been brought forward to support it, with a single exception, have 
proven to be mistaken ideas. The moths are cAidently capable of mak- 
ing long flights, as is shown by their occurrence in the autumn several 
hundred miles north of the latitude in which they can survive the winter. 
But this alone is not sufficient " to prove the theory. It simply shows 
that did the moths occur in large numbers within an equal distance south 
of our territory we would be liable to suffer from incursions of the pest 
from those regions. But it remains to be proven that the presence of 
moths in our country is dependent upon such incursions. Mr. Schwarz 
has shown iu his report* that there can have been no invasion of the 
moth from the Bahamas since 1866. And it can hardly be supi)0sed that 
moths have come to us from the islands south of the Bahamas since that 
date, for in that case the latter islands would have been restocked with 
worms by some of the migrating individuals on the passage to this coun- 
try. With regard to the possibility of receiving moths from Cuba, we find 
that, although cotton is indigenous there, very little is grown ; and, too, 
there is no e\adence of an excessive multiplication of the cotton-worm 
on the island. In a collection of insects injurious to cotton made by my 
friend Mr. B. W. Law, near Havana, not a specimen of Aletia was found. 
Hence we cannot believe that since the year 1866 our country has saf- 
fered to any great extent by immigrations of moths from the West Indies. 
* Appendix I. Report of E. A. Scbw.arz. 



TNFLUrNCE OF WIND. ' 121 

Certainly the presence of cotton-worms in Florida, Georgia, and Ala- 
bama cannot be dependent upon the incmsion of moths from those 
islands, neither does it seem probable that swarms of moths come into 
those States annually from Mexico by way of Texas, Louisiana, and 
Mississippi. In the first place but little cotton is grown in the northern 
part of Mexico ; secondly, the worms appear as early in Alabama, Georgia, 
and Florida as they do in Texas, which would not be the case if their 
presence were dependent upon flights of moths via the latter State. 

Briefly, our conclusions are that although the adult Aletia. may occa- 
sionally come into the Gulf States from regions farther south, the pres- 
€nce of the cotton-worm in those States is not dependent upon such im- 
migrations. 

INFLUENCE OF WINDS ON IMMiaHATION OF MOTHS. 

In the course of the present investigation considerable attention has 
been given to a study of the winds of the Southern States as bearing on 
the theory of migrations of the moths. The results of this study are 
quite important. For, although there is no doubt that the moths sur- 
vive the winter in all of the Gulf States, it is of interest to know if we 
are also subject to immigrations of this pest. 

As to the question whether the winds from the south are sufficiently 
strong and constant to counteract the prevailing trade winds, which are 
toward the equator, the opinions of correspondents difler widely. In some 
instances the question lias not been fully understood, the replies being 
found too uniutelligible to use as evidence either way. As a brief sum- 
mary of opinions, however, it may be stated that 60 per cent, of the replies 
affirm that the south winds are sufficiently strong to counteract the trade 
winds, 28 per cent, are in the negative, with 5 per cent, of doubtful answers. 
Some of the statements are made most positively, and seem almost con- 
vincing in regard to migration of the moths. Mr. E. M. Thompson, of 
Jefterson, Ga., mentions that strange birds and fowls, foreign to the 
climate, are found in his locality, blown and left there by southerly winds, 
and, from this circumstance, is of the opinion that the south winds are 
sufficiently constant and heavy to bring the moths from that direction. 

The following extracts are given as examples of the replies under this 
heading : 

Orangeburgh, Orangehurgh County, Souih Carolina. — During Juue, July, and August 
we have strong south wind, begiuu-ing about eight o'clock in the morning, and lasting 
until late at night, plenty strong enough to bring moths from a great distance. — fPaul 
S. Felder. 

Crittenden's Mills, Ala. — I think we have [south winds strong enough to counteract 
the prevailing trade winds], as, during February and March, the winds blow down 
many trees here. The southern border of this county is within 50 miles of the Gulf of 
Mexico; hence we have heavy Gulf winds. — [J. C. Matthews. 

Woodville, Wilkinson County, Mississippi. — Yes ; beyond a doubt. Nearly every year — 
perhaps I should say every year — such winds occur. — [D. L. Phares. 

DeeaturviUe, Decatur County, Tennessee. — There are times when our south and south- 
west winds are strong enough to counteract any other. — [John McMillan. 

Larissa Cherokee County, Texas. — There are [strong south winds] caused by the large 



122 REPORT UPON COTTON INSECTS. 

surface of prairie iu the State, whicli turn our uortlieast trade, or what would be such, 
to south, southeast, or southwest. — [William Barnes. 

Millheim, Austin County, Texas. — In some years, the winds are suflficdently strong to 
have the effect [of counteracting the trade winds]. I have noticed that the strong 
winds from the south and southwest generally occur in a dry year. — [J. H. Kraucher. 

Union Springs, Autauga, County, Alabama. — Trade winds have but little influence in 
this part of Alabama. — [J. R. Rodgers. 

Jayville, Conecuh County, Alabama. — While I think the wind is often strong enough 
from the south to drive before it the caterpillar fly, I am not at all inclined to the 
opinion that they get here in that way, unless it be the fly of the army-worm. — [An- 
drew Jay. 

Lake Saint John, Concordia Parish, Louisiana. — During March and April the prevail- 
ing wind is south and west, lasting sometimes a week, strong enough and lasting long 
enough to bring a moth from South America, I should think. I have no record of the 
wind, but if the moths are brought here by the wind, which I think they are, it is 
during the months of March, April, and May. — [H. B. Shaw. 

Isabella, Worth County, Georgia. — Not often, only occasionally. — [Wm. A. Harris. 

Burkeville, Lowndes County, Alabama. — South winds but seldom prevail for longer 
than 24 hours, occasionally two days with decided prevalence. — [P. T. Graves. 

Entei-prise, Clark County, Mississippi. — Rarely ever have strong winds from the south 
long at a time. — [W. Speillmau. 

Dennison^s Landing, Perry County, Tennessee. — I cannot remember to have observed 
winds from the south sufficiently strong to have counteracted the prevailing trade 
winds toward the equator. — [A. W. Hunt, M. D. 

Hempstead, Waller County, Texas. — Do not believe our winds are sufficiently strong 
or continuous to have any eft'ect on the trade winds. — [S. P. Clark. 

Mulberry, Autauga County, Alabama. — I can scarcely credit the suggestion that the 
wind is sufficiently strong and continuous from the south to have much influence on 
the transportation of the moth. — [C. W. Howard. 

From these statements, even where they are given negatively, it will 
be seen that there are short periods of strong southerly winds in nearlj* 
every one of the cotton States. Upon the sea-coast the winds are of 
course stronger and more constant in their prevailing southerly direc- 
tiou than in the interior. The question then arises as to how many days 
will be required for the wind to blow — with force— in a given direction, 
to bring the moths from the nearest point to the southward of the 
United States at which they may be found. 

As early as May, at Indianola, Tex., the winds are almost wholly 
southerly, and by reference to the weather-bureau records for that 
month it will be seen that an average velocity of 17 miles per hour is. 
recorded for the five nights from the 15th to the 19th, inclusive ; the 
exact ])oint of the compass indicated being southeast. This is the high- 
est velocity for southerly night winds at Indianola recorded for the 
month of May, 1873 (the average being but 9.5 for the entire 31 days), 
and probably as high as in any other mouth. The average for the nine 
stations in Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas, for 
the three months, April, May, and June, 1873, is found to be but a frac- 
tion less than 6 miles per hour. How far then are we able to judge by 
general averages, when we consider that there are days of almost total 
calm, the force hardly reaching 1 or 2 miles per hour, and but few days 
when the velocity reaches 15 to 20 miles per hour? The questioQ of 



SYNOPSIS OF ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ON WIND. 123 

migration, therefore, as affected by winds, is narrowed down to these 
two considerations : 

1. Has a south or southerly breeze, with a velocity of 12 to 20 miles 
an hour, sufiQcient force to bring the cotton- worm moth from the "peren- 
nial cotton-fields ? " 

2. Would an occasional strong breeze of one, three, or five days' dura- 
tion, at the rate of velocity given, allow a sufficient length of time for 
the moth to make its journey ? 

If these questions can be answered affirmatively, having in mind that 
the moths are moved by the winds within our own borders, we have a 
very strong argument in favor of the theory that the insects are brought 
to the cotton States from the southward at the beginning of the season, 
for the winds are almost constantly from the southward through the 
season when the moths would most likely take advantage of them. The 
ordinary low rate of velocity (for night winds) often increases to 12, 15, 
18, or 22 miles j)er hour, and this force, with slight variation, occasion- 
ally continues for two or three, or even five days in succession. If, on 
the contrary, a higher velocity is required than the figures in the tables 
indicate, and for a longer duration of time than has been stated, the wind 
records prove that the destruction of 1873 was not occasioned by the 
progeny of moths that came across the Gulf of Mexico. 

In the circular sent out by the Department of Agriculture, the corre- 
spondents were requested to furnish data upon the two points named — 
prevailing direction and velocity — for each month separately from Feb- 
ruary to June, and collectively from July until frost. Eeplies were re- 
ceived from over seventy localities in the cotton States, the greater ma- 
jority from Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, and Texas. As a whole, 
these observations bear evidence of reliability, though in some cases the 
question has been misunderstood, and two or three points of the compass 
indicated at once as the "prevailing" direction for the month. In view 
of this error in making up the returns it was found necessary, for the 
sake of approximate correctness, to tabulate all of the observations, and 
thus ascertain the i)revailing direction by calculating the percentages 
for each point of the compass. The figures thus obtained cannot, of 
course, be relied upon as absolutely correct, as the replies are not given 
from actual records, or for a particular year, but as general observa- 
tions. The reply of " variable," which occurs occasionally in the returns, 
necessarily alters the final figures in estimating the percentages of winds 
from the different points; still the results obtained agree very closely 
with the official figures, as ascertained from the records of the United 
States Signal Office. 

As has been stated, the replies are principally from four of the Gulf 
States, though ten States are representedin the returns. The total num- 
ber of answers for the different months amount to about four hundred. 
These observations are for day and not night winds. For convenience of 
tabulation, as well as to save unnecessary labor, but four "directions'^ 



124 



REPORT UPON COTTON INSECTS. 



are indicated in the tables, viz, northerly, to include northeast, north, 
and northwest; southerly, to include southeast, south, and southwest; 
and east and west. When south winds are mentioned or the letter S oc- 
curs, therefore, either due south, southeast, or southwest are to be un- 
derstood. 

From a study of the northerly and southerly winds, as given in these 
returns, we find that prevailing southerly winds occur in February in but 
two States, Alabama and Texas, in the ratios of 7 to 4, and 10 to 7, re- 
spectively. In Georgia the northerly winds iH'evail in the ratio of 7 to 
4 in each State, while in the other States they are equal. In March 
northerly winds prevail only in North Carolina and Florida, while the 
northerly and southerly winds are equal in South Carolina and Georgia, 
and southerly- winds prevail in the remaining States. For April, May, 
and June the prevailing direction is almost invariably southerly' for all 
the States, with the exception of Florida and Tennessee, where they are 
about equal. In the Gulf States the percentages of southerly winds run 
very high, culminating in June. For the remainder of the year, until 
frost, the months have been considered as a whole, though a subsequent 
study of the weather-bureau returns shows that it would have been better 
to have considered them separately, as a decided change in direction, 
particularly in the Gulf States, takes place in September, so marked a 
■change indeed that the records of north winds in September and October 
almost neutralize the high percentage of south winds in July and Au- 
o-ust. 

The following tabulation of returns for the different months for the 
State of Alabama will illustrate the manner in which the questions are 
answered : 

ALABAMA. 



County. 



Autauga 

BuUock 

Oreene 

Hale 

Lowndes 

Marengo 

Montgomery 

Do 

Do 

Sumter 

Wilcox 

Dale 

Autauga 

Bullock 

Oreene 

Hale 

Lowndes 

Marengo 

Montgomery 

Do \ 

Do 

Samter 

Wilcox 

Dale 



Town. 



Mulberry 

Union Springs . . . 

Forkland 

Green Springs — 
Lowndesborough 

Faunsdale 

Pike Ivoad 

Mount Meigs 

Snowdoun 

Gaston 

Camden 

Crittenden's Mills 



Mulberry 

Union Springs 

Forkland 

Green Springs . . . 
Lowndesborougli , 

Faunsdale 

Tike Road 

Mount Meigs 

Snowdoun 

Gaston 

Camden 

Crittenden'sMills. 



February. 



N 

W 

N. and N. E 

S.W.andS.E.... 

E. and S 

S.E 

E.andS.E 

Variable 

S.E.toN.W 

S.&S.W-.N'. &N.W 



S., W., and S. W 



May. 



Variable 

S. and S. W . . . 

S 

S.E.andS.W. 



S.E 

E.andS.E... 
Southerly . . . 
S. W.to Ixf.E. 
S.E.andS... 
S. to N. E . . . . 
S.and W 



March. 



E. andN 

W. and N. W . 
N. and N. E . . . 
S.E.andS.W. 

E. and S 

S.E 

E.andS.E.... 



S.E.toN.W 

S.E.&S., vV. &N.W 
E. and W 



June. 



Variable . . . 
S. and S. W 
S 



S.E 

E. and S. E . 



Gentle S . . . . 
S. and S. W 
S. to N. E . . . 
S.and W.... 



April. 



Variable. 

N". 

S.E. 

E. and S. 

S.E. 

E. and S. E. 

S. W., variable. 

S. W. to N. E. 

S. E. and S. 

W. to N. E. 

W. and N. W. 



July tUl frost. 



Variable. 
W. and N. W. 
S. and S. W. 

E. in faU. 

S.E. 

E. and S. E. 

W. and southerly. 

S. 

S. nnd W., variable. 

N.W. 

W. and N. W. 



TABLES OF PREVAILING DIRECTION OF WINDS. 



125 



The following table gives the prevailing direction in each of the ten 
States for the months indicated, as compiled from the returns, with the 
ratio of northerly to southerly winds for each : 



states. 



North Carolina. 
South Carolina . 

Georgia 

rioridii 

Alabama 

Mississippi 

Louisiana 

Texas 

Arkansas 

Tennessee 



February. 



Direc- 
tion. 



Ratio N. 
to S. winds. 



5 to 2 



4 to 7 

7 to 4 



7 to 10 
1 to 2 



March. 



Direc- 
tion. 



Ratio N. 
to S. winds. 



Ot 



2 to 1 
5 to 6 

3 to 6 


2 to 8 
1 to 3 



April. 



Direc- 
tion. 



Ratio N. 
to S. winds. 



2 to 1 

3 to 4 

4 to 7 
1 to 7 







States. 



North Carolina. 
South Carolina. 

Georgia 

Florida 

Alabama. 

Mississippi .... 

Louisiana 

Texas 

Arkansas 

Tennessee 



May. 



June. 



Direc- 
tion. 



Ratio N. I Direc- 
to S. winds. | tion. 





2 to 6 

2 to 10 
1 to 7 



Ratio N. 
to S. winds. 



to 6 



July till frost. 



Direc- 
tion. 



Ratio N. 
to S. winds. 






5 to 7 
1 to 2 
8 to 11 
1 to 7 



1 to 10 



1 to 2 



*A dash signifies that the northerly and southerly winds for the month are about equal, 
t Returns meager, and no southerly or northerly winds recorded, as the case may be. 

As a brief summary of the information contained in the department 
returns, in relation to direction, the following figures are given, showing 
the prevailing direction of the winds for the cotton States, as a whole, 
with the percentages of winds in each point of the compass for the 
months named. The percentages are estimated per hundred observa- 
tions : 



Prevailing direction. 



Northerly (N., N. E., and N. W) 

East 

Southerly (S., S. E., and S. W) . 
West 



Febru- 
ary. 



40.2 

11.2 

40.2 

8.4 



March. 



31.7 

14.3 

46.0 

7.9 



April. 



21.5 
10.7 
56.9 
10.7 



May. 



12.9 

11.2 

69.3 

6.4 



June. 



2.2 

6.6 

80.0 

11.0 



July 

till 

frost. 



22. » 
10.8 
50.0 
10. 



After the completion of the work on these returns it was thought ad- 
visable to verify the statements by records of actual daily observation,, 
obtained from the Weather Bureau of the War Department, and at the 
same time to make the report more valuable by taking into account, 
at the same time, the velocity of the winds, which has hardly been con- 
sidered in the department returns, or indicated in too vague a manner 
to be reduced to figures for tabulation, , 



126 REPORT UPON COTTON INSECTS. 

The tri-daily records for the year 1873 were decided upon, as this was, 
known to be a year in which the worm was particularly destructive, and 
thirteen stations were selected, in South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Ala- 
bama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Texas, and Tennessee, from which to ob- 
tain the necessary data. As the moths are nocturnal in habits, the 
night winds only were considered, and the record of 11 o'clock p. m. for 
each day of the nine months, from February to October, were tabulated, 
making, in all, between four and five thousand daily records. From the 
interesting data thus obtained a number of tables have been prepared, 
which confirm the previous statement. In studying the tables of velocity, 
it will be noted that the figures are very low in some cases, and it must 
be borne in mind that the records are for night winds, which are always 
lighter than the winds occurring in the day-time, unless when preceding 
or accompanying storms. The storm winds, generally speaking, are 
from other points of the compass than south. 

The calms have also been considered the records for furnishing inter- 
esting data for study in connection with the subject of this chapter. 
Twenty-five days (nights) of calm in July, and twenty-seven days in 
August, in Augusta, Ga., would not assist the moths in their migrations 
in that locality to any alarming degree. It is worthy of remark, how- 
ever, that Augusta is an exception to the other stations in this matter 
of calms. 

The records for Texas, made at Indianola and Galveston, should be 
corrected slightly for inland localities, as the winds on the coast, and 
backward for a few miles, are more invariably southerly, and blow with 
greater force than higher up in the cotton regions. They are not far out 
of the way as indicating general direction, as can easily be verified by 
reference to inland stations in adjacent States. Key West, Fla., was 
particularl}'^ chosen from its maritime situation, and is an exception to all 
the other stations, the wind prevailing from the eastward for almost the 
entire nine months, as indicated in the tables, the prevailing direction 
in February and October being northerly. A study of wind records at 
various points on the West India Islands would prove interesting, and 
might throw considerable light upon the question under consideration. 

The four following tables show the prevailing direction of winds at the 
sattions named for the months of February to October (inclusive), 1873, 
and the fifth contains a summary of the whole. 

By reference to the first line of figures in Tables A and B for each 
station, the total number of northerly, east, southerly, or west winds, and 
number of days of calm for each month, will be found indicated by the 
word direction. In the second line is given the average velocity in miles 
per hour, expressed decimally, and in the two remaining lines the highest 
and lowest records of velocity during the mouth are stated. In some 
cases an apparent discrepancy may be noted between the number of 
days in the calendar month and the total number of days of recorded 
winds and calms, caused by the absence of observations, in some in- 



SUMMARY, 127 

stances, in the printed records of the Weather Bureau from which these 
returns are made up. 

Referring- to the fifth table, we have an exhibit of the number of days 
of perceptible winds from all quarters (without considering calms) ; the 
prevailing direction for the month, and the percentage of i^revailing 
winds, calculated from the totals of actual days of wind for the month, as 
above. 

A studj' of these tables reveals the fact that the prevailing direction 
of the winds in the cotton States, as far as we are able to judge from 
the thirteen stations, is almost without exception southerly for six months 
of the year from March to August, ranging from 31 to 98 per cent. 
Further, that the i^revailing direction for the remaining months — Feb- 
rua/y, September, and October — is quite variable. During the month of 
Febiiiary, however, southerly winds prevailed in Charleston, Savannah, 
Lake City, Vicksburg, New Orleans, ludianola, and Galveston. In Mo- 
bile the northerly and southerly winds were equal, and of the remain- 
ing five stations, three indicate a northerly direction, and one, each, east 
and west. For the month of September the winds are southerly at 
Shreveport, ludianola, and Galveston, east at Key West, and northerly 
at the remaining stations. The October winds at Vicksburg, ludianola, 
and Galveston are southerly 5 at New Orleans the southerly and north- 
erly winds are equal, and in the remaining States the latter direction 
prevails. The highest percentage of northerly winds is 83 per cent, and 
the lowest 35 per cent. 



128 



REPORT UPON COTTON INSECTS. 



« 


00 






TS 






,—>. 


a 


M 




(> 


?! 


a 


S 


P 


«> 


hJ 




C3 




s 


■c; 




.gi 


M 
^ 


:= 


e 


:i 


O 




H 



tH S >^ 



§ ^ 



s 


^ 


s 


M 


-w 


W 


a 


N 


a 





'S. 



'I?. 



•raiBO ^o I IS 1 I iu. 



•mi^o 



•nilBO 



•raiBO 



^ 



I I 



■>ji m 30 -^ « Tj< T)i 



I ^5 CO O « i-H t~ t^ I 



O O 00 TT r-t 



■H^ loo I I 



I>l:^(M(NOO'^00'^-«#CO!OC<»OOOOM«iHTjJoONC^COCOi-lir5CO"^iH 



irtrtCOOOC^lTt*'* 1 Mt-C^C<lCO»iMCQC0'MT^i-<<MC>l'^rHrCJ'iO'1« 



C-5i-i«D**if5OO"*OQ0OC<liH5^C1 liH^O^D ImCQlOiHCOCQ'^r-l 



Mo I I U I I I 



MtJitC I "* 00 e<i t(< 1-1 cj im 



loo I 



u-s c« Tji N CJ m Til cq 



iHrHrH I 



OOCOOeqoOT)<00'llOOlrfcqrH<OOOl»Mi-ICiSOON'-lld«Oi-l00 05QOT-l 
iH M r-i r-t iH ri !^l__r^^ 

(N N eo CO 

■^ o 00 -^ i^ -^ 00-* CO c* N "* iA 00 o CO CO in X -^ o o I Icoooom 



:OOOO^OC500^'*t'«0'i<Ot>C5W!OiaC-'IC<IOO<0<ONCOCOt*iH 



lollUIIUII|.ollUlli«lll 



COlrfCO'<t^OOW'<*O^OC<l--t^t^ IO3'<*'Q0C<lrHC<ICQ I^CilftiH 



W* O M O O 



^,0000 |!MC^00O>-l-*'# loo 



CO t- OS -"l" iH ■* •* I •* Tji » Tj< N O <0 « N « CO M t- ■* CI rH r-l 00 00 



.«o I U I Mo I lU II lo I I U II U j 



•^t-5OTl«'*00I-l'^-*'^Tl< loo I loo I IrH^Tjl IrHIMCJ I 

O ^00 CO 

COOdl»Tl<OI-'5 00'*COtOffQCOffaOS00005U500T)ilCTjiffqi-iCOCO!OiH 



<oooo I oo I loo 



I I. 



> to •* in irf 00 ■* r-l i-( rH I iH « CT I 



OOC5t*-*C<I<OQO^OOt>CO-^COWO:Ot*t*WTHOSt-OOiH05»ritM^ 



•nUBO 



I I CO I II O I I U I II » I II 00 II U II 



t-o>oc<ioo>.';?q'^<ot-to^rHOo Icoooof^ocoto loo I I 

53 rt !H iHrH 

in in «o 

OJ 00 00 N PO -^ ■«* 1 O f-( 5OC0 eOod t" iH iH t*(M (N OS OM rH 0> CO Tj4rH 



5<#«>H0000 I M lO 00 e« ^ O «0 J5 CO -"Jl •<* IrHlOlO I CO ffj ■<<" N 



iat-'«l''^C0r-IC0'^'>J<05O-<)<00Omi0m'^00'*0Srji«0iHIQiniNeQ 
iH iH iH N tH r-i r-i ^ 



=1 




TABLE OF WINDS. 



129 



'a * 5 



9ci 



•nqBO 



rliHiH lOOOOOO 



I I i-l-*Tjl I OO I I tHNN I 



rH C^ f-i rH C^ C<l C^ rH r^i rH 



i-H T^ ■.* I -«*« M -^ W -"^ TjS t* iH O O O O W CO ^^ W CO CO -^ iH 



IMi-<(MtH.-ICOCO I'^COOrHrHOJ'M ||H-*T(> ItJI-^'* 



•ra[BO a. I I I N I I 



lo I : :o I I U I I I 



W (M (M I Tj« urs 00 lO o o o o o o 



I I 



•niiBO 



•nqBo 



•*-^05C^rHTt<O^COC©t>»(MC0050SC^»nOSlM'^l^'^Xi-( 



C^l rH i-H >H CJ rt (M C-l 



C^ !0 O <M CM CO CO iH CD 50 M -^ t^ 05 1-* t- i-H M CO 1 iH CO CO 



COCOOrH'^00'^CO-^'^©C<ICOiHm<M»AMCOCOt^-^QOf-l 



M U I I U I I lo I I U I 1 U i 1 I 



U 



MOOOO |WC©CO IcOtHOS-^OO 



OO O O CO CO W CO 



■^C0C^T*«(M:0OC0C0C0C0CMC<l05ir!<Mt^Q0Oi-Hi0I>C0rH 
i-H rH <M i-H 1-1 CM lyi 1-4 iH T-H >-l 1-H 



NOOOCO^TfTf iMtOOCQOO I lOOOOC^COON 



CC00O(MTj<CC'CQC0l>C0t*IMa0WT#4-<^Q000mC00S»ft05iH 
(M tH 1-H (MlO rH 



I I O I I U I I I O M I ^ I I I CO I I I 



iHrHi-l I IN CO lO rH .H rH r-l loO I ' 



CDt»'^C<105inXNCOt*l/5rHOlOOrH-^COOC<l(Nt*C<lTj< 
rH rH rH rH CO C^l cq CI rH rH rH 



Hi«COlfirHCOWaOC<lrH(NW |c005rHlOC<IO5.-l>rH'<#Hi< 



rH CO -^ rH O CO O ** O . 00 M t- O '^ rH Tji 05 CO CO N lO N » 



rH(M rH COrH 



^^■.y rHrf 



•nil^'O CO 



lo I M^ I I lo I I 



OOOOC^t-^Oi-H-^OQOfMlMQOCDi-KMCDOlMCCCDOTti 



•-HCOCOiM'*ft>OeO'^OC<HM'^OOffQt-SDCQrHO-**0<N 



r-l rH G^ 






COiOOOCOCOt^'M'^lOifSOC-lM'COCOr-HtHOO 



-HO I 



X»r505rHt:^CSCO-^t>I>rHCsIOOOOOC<lt>OCOCDrHiaCOrH 



rH IM' 



rHCO r^ rH 






L^f^. 



.g 



.2 M^«.2 bii^-p.2 M^-e-2 w:»-e-2 Mm+^-2 m^-w 
ci 2 S o o S S <o ci 2S <u o S_S ® ci g_H aj o S S » 



130 



REPORT UPON COTTON INSECTS. 







3 


























1 




1 ^ 


1 1 1 " 1 


1 III II 1 1 1 CO 1 1 1 IM II 




1 ^ 


U5 1 1 1 IN 1 


Kol 1 lool \ t~ \ 1 Irtl 1 ItHol 1 






o 








^ 




1 1 1 >n XT, 






CO •*■* 1 ?) X oc 


r^<^^!^^ c^imc-i rHcoco rq-dSconiMci-jjirH 








rH .-( C-J Ol 


1 












CO 


1 ■" II "" 


2 




!» 


•£ •* O .-1 rt Tj. ^ 


Ixirfxcqoo 1 lmT(<xiMrqr-iiM,-ioiOMiM 


a 






.—1 


l-i 


O 
























N 






H 


rHNN loooo--imM 1 os«ciT)<(M toeoTCcq oo 1 1 imtJ!-* 1 1 




to in 


U5 CO CO 






^ 


toi>ocqio-*oos<is>mffi.e<ioi.-5o?nnt>OrH-tt>:'.Ort05«><or-i 1 








,H i-l 


rHr-ICvJi-HCOrtS^rtJl rH 






a 


III II 


1 III III III III III 






'3 


rH 1 1 1 ;* 1 1 


Itol 1 1^1 1 1^1 1 1^1 1 la, \ 1 1 






o 






^ 


« 




;J 




ooooMirfoO'^i-iMed i«t-'HcoMeo-*iMM(o«i loo 1 1 1 


s 

;= 
















a 








1 t- ^ . 


© 




J» 


rt O IM rC m Tf .^ 


1 OS ir> X-* rH XOO 1 35 CO X iH ■* CO X r-l in Cq T)< tH 












& 










V 










yj 






m 


in CO in to 






« 


eOMTjllMNTfl,* 


1 cflco^cocooixcTocoeo-^rHeoc^cocflinco-^iM 








to o 


in ''^ in 






!^ 


moJto.*o»->a<oo-<iie<iosooiMeii54o»t-inQomt-s>Noj— ieocx)r-( 1 










rt -H rtrtrt rH r-l rH 






1 


c 1 1 U 1 1 


1 t. 1 1 1 O 1 1 1 t- 1 1 U 1 1 1 ^ 1 1 1 






o 


-' 


oa 


^ 


o 


c^ 






T). T)! CO ..J. r-l 00 OC 


loo 1 1— 'IMM IrHIMIN l-*CO-*N,-lrHr-l 1 


• 










1 






m 


05 in 




02 


a i6 ao •* <n 'f -^ 


1 xin»e<i-*xiHT(i«c<3com^Ttf^<NinNTjir-i 


3 










■< 
























1 '^ in to 






W 


"* l» 00 TJ. r-( X 00 


1 CO CO-*N t>o6in-*«rHrH 1 Tj< CO O) .* CO rH M rH 






1 "^ "^ °° 1 






125 


IMCOXrCO oo 


JcOf0..ilCOXC^CO.^C0CO'«^'NincOtOni-li-l,H 1 






a 




1 III III III II III 






"3 


o 1 1 U-. 1 i 


\a> \ 1 1^1 1 li-l 1 lool lol 1 1 






o 


CI 




^ 




II 1 "" r 1 


£^ 




O OOO o o o 


lrH.<f* l(M-H-*X«-*-* iMCOinMOO 1 1 




CO 


in t- t- 


"3 




M 


O to to <N •*•«(< ■>* 


i>-<i(i»cq»ioaomeo'<jiaoeoe<icue<i,HcocoxiH 


^n 






ca « 


iH 1-1 rH rt rt rt 






CO .* 






fA 


to O M 'X r- »* ■* 


irtXX lo-HOt:-XWr}cM<N-*^ llMOO 1 






CO CO 






^ 


OO 1 1 rt-*-* 


lc0tdx->*0»TtOC0rHrti-l ltO..*<tOMrHrH,-l 1 




a 


CC i . 7] 




T. 






^ 






ao 






ce 1 








■^ ■ ■ ■ a 




(U 






o 






Q 


. . a; 




OJ . 






>> 


•a ■ ■ S3 




ra 












:3 












J 3 

1^ 


:a : ; :a 


I 


a 






a 






a 


: i'a 




a ; 






•.g : : •.« 


: '.S 




•.a 




-.9 


; '.g 




.g : 






00 ^ ^ • 00 ^ ^ 


J ^. '-». . ' J ^- >. . 5 ^- >. . ' J ^. > . ' !" ■■^- >5 ■ 




Z^ J 5 Z^J 


'i1-^i'i1-im|il1|j'5l|l1 




_ <30 






■■sa 


.2 Mm *? .2 bfS 


liyilaOlilFiallill! 

^'t^c^i^'^t^c3a>*-*^cro'^-*T'c3ti®*^c^43tn 




■e ^ ® ? tr ^ II 




£ 


V t- — ^ -^ '— ^ 






Q 






fi-<Sh:5P<:s: 


;55-'i3HjS<^a35<is3S<i5.3p-^w.3 






1^ ; 


i ; : : _2 
• c5 ce ! <i 




IB 
1 


i ^ 
1 i 


mnah, Ga 
West, Fl 
3 City, Fl 
lie, Ala . 
tgomery,. 








- 1 


> 

c- 


















o 

13 







TABLE OF WINDS. 



131 



s 


c^ 


^ 


t> 




M 


.^ 


V) 


00 


P 




^ 


*» 


■) 


rSj 


"A 






-< 




■s 


P3 




M 


.V 


pq 


-s 


O 




H 


•«* 


( ) 


s 


O 




O 


i^ 


H 








N 


s 


h-1 


e 


t3 


~ 


Hj 



I I I » I I I O M U I I I O I I I CO I I I 



rHcaiM I eOTjIincq OOOOOOO OOOOOr-tOOOO 



t^ 00 CO <D O CO 

00'*'l>COOT)it>iHlM'*QOiH»odO'^ait^OOrHO>C<itOiH 



c<5co»c<iocoooi-i.Hmm loinoomirjmooc^THcoco 



lrt^'^f-HOi-*-»tC-^COlO-^i-lt^'noOlftOCOOOC<lC^tOQOT-l 



r^ i-l 1-H CM i-^ rH 



^ t-H CJ r-( r-< 



CO I 1 I lO 



I I I 



OOOOrHCOCO IT-Hom |OOOOtHt~t~ IrHC 



L^mOfHt'C0l>CQT-llO'MWO05O00lr*0>Or^t*'^lrt'<# 
r-l iH tH eg iH iH ffq 



>o ffq CO 

COci^r-(-^o6-^Tt<COlrf«Dir5-<**'Tj<?OOiCOOOOiIOOOOO 



CO in 

OTj<j^ir-f*odocQoo>»ooi-ttocooot-toeMcO'^t>mco<M 

r-( iH iH rH ffq IM rH rtrt iH tH 



a 

■3 I 
o I 



O O O O to CO CO C<J r-( CM CM I O O O O rH -^ •^J' loooo 



O 110 



COCOOOCM-'JICOC^COrHlom IC^lOSOQOCMCOlCtHGMrHCMiH 



(N«CM I to ■* to i-H l> CM t- iH 1-1 to » I CM tO I> in Ifl CO Ifl r-( 



>n I I I CO 



I I 



OOOOCO-'^-^i lOOOOOOOOrHC^lC 



q ® 



to to in in in o 

C^lC0OC<)00C0mrH05t000C<lCM0d-^CMCCtd"'^Cq00-^t-C^ 
rHi-lr-1 rti-H rH(NrHiH 



o CM CM I -^ in to in CO in in I cm i> cm cq cm os th t* ih in in 

rtCMrH .-I 



■^ i-l to cm CO to to ■*-#■* 00 CM CO 05 CM O 1-1 CM CM I 00 ■>♦ O rH 



■So 0-3-2 o 0-3- 



"!l! ^ i "^ - 

=> CD > ^ 

O g»-l^ _jj o 



JO'S =.g c-S^np-S o 

fcX) to -s .2 bti^ -tt .2 b/j-S w 
^_— 4)t^tH.a^^^n^ 



—1 tl a: -t^ "^ bJD ai -i^ 

ogSSogSS 



132 



REPORT UPON COTTON INSECTS. 



'J9qo!)oo 



«O^J•-^OO^Je5«O^J^l-H^•■^TJ<^•(^lOO^Jt-QOt;o^-•t~(35,^3tOl•rHOS,/m.-|,JrtOOL^.-| 



•jaqraa^dag 






•fjenSny 



§a2g''aJSS«5g^wSSi»gSaJ5!Sa!§Sa!SSwSISa2gSt«§S5a!SS}25S 



At 



SMticcSNai^mPHeoSa!SN(/3ini--i!»oorHa3t-c<iC056c<iCOi>eoMoooi!«aOMC»«o 



•eaap 






•j£«j^ 



?Mg?3a5SS!»§Sw5Sw5S3!J5:NaJ?2g3a5g§a5S?:-/:5j:;c«?:Sa3SS«55 



^W 



M-3 



as '.a a • .g a 



t.'*- ce.n--« 



;-2 g,-g.2 ^-^.S 5,-g.2 ^Jl ^|l dll *.IJ ^>-2 S.'^S ^is.2 S;^ 

2.8-^ ^l-S ? £■! ^l-c ^l-s ^.l-^ S-^-S 5 §-§ ^l-d ^.S-i ^.l'^ 5. 

j!;s o-d^ ^'^■S "^"C^ ^-^^ o-c^s -■-ir: ^r:— -"^^ -■=-:; 7"^ '-3 -~t3 "'o^a ■- 

o Sfu'c Sfti'" -tuo y-Ms a^St'-S u-rt'-H i'Mo L'-^f.'~ t'^t'c yfr/c if uc y^ft'o S»?t 

t, .9 « fr. .9 « ;_ .3 ^ i, .9 s t- .S " t- .5 " - .3 ~ i. .= " ;- .2 " ;_ .3 ^ - .:: ~ - .S '^ t. .9 i; 

®n-"rt ^r^S'e 3, — ^ -:;i^ -r^a -rn"^ -r;^s -" c -^ :: -^ — i^c "^^ C3 i*^ Q 



g >• o s 



i ^ 



a a 



^ a 



s o 



CHAPTER V. 

INFLUENCE OF WEATHER. 

It seems curious that observers should be so divided in opinion as they 
are concerning so simple a point as whether a mild or a severe winter 
is the more apt to be followed by a bad worm season. Of the corre- 
spondents of the department, some hold one view, others the directly 
opposite opinion, while still others state that the degree of severity of 
the winter makes no difference whatever with the extent of the ravages 
the succeeding season. Those holding the last view base their opinion 
on the fact that they have actually known disastrous worm seasons to 
follow cold and warm winters indiscriminately.* 

Those holding the opposing views referred to also claim to found their 
opinions upon actual experience. The advocates of the view that a 
severe winter will be followed by the worm give as their explanation the 
fact that during warm winters the moths come forth from their hibernat- 
ing quarters and die of hunger, whereas while in winter quarters and in 
the true state of hibernating somnolency not only is no food necessary, 
but they are less exposed to dangers of all kinds which would assail 
them if they flew out, attracted by sunshiny weather. The upholders 
of the theory that warm winters are more apt to be followed by the worm 
simply urge the idea that the severity of the colder winters kills the 
hibernating individuals. 

The truth of the matter, as it seems to us, is that, other things being 
equal, a warm winter is more favorable to hibernation than a cold one. 
It seems to be true that the cotton- moth was originally a tropical or sub- 
tropical insect, and that only in favored localities within the limits of the 
United States can it hibernate at all. As we go northward the winters 
become too severe for survival from one season to another. Farther 
south, then, winters approaching to this northern severity must be un- 
favorable, while winters approaching those of the normal habitat of the 
moth will prove favorable. This is reasoning in the abstract. Actual 
experience seems to show that occasionally the greatest worm years 
follow undoubtedly cold winters. This seems to have been the case with 
the season of 1873, in some parts of Alabama at least. Such instances 
we think, however, must be laid to a combination of other causes, work- 
ing through a series of years; and that, instead of the severity of the pre- 
ceding winter having been the sole cause, the ravages of the worms 
would have been even worse had a mild winter come before. 

Another and more important point concerning the influence of weather, 
brought out by the 1878 circular, was, — do the worms flourish most in a 

* Tliis fact has been used as an argument for the migration theory. 

133 



134 EEPORT UPON COTTON INSECTS. 

wet or dry season ? In the answers to this question great unanimity- 
was found. With but few exceptions, the general opinion seems to be 
that wet years are the most disastrous caterpillar years. 

This fact (for such it undoubtedly is) has been always accounted for 
by the fact that wet weather produces a rank and succulent weed, of 
superior nourishing power to one dwarfed and dried by continued droughty 
and by the fact that in hot dry weather many worms are actually killed 
by the heat of the sun and by the oven-like heat of the earth when 
marching is attempted. 

Another point, intimately connected with this last, is the one that the 
low, damp parts of a field are the ones where the worms always appear 
first in spring. This may be accounted for by the probable fact that on 
damp parts of a plantation the early cotton grows faster than on the 
drier parts : nectar is earlier secreted from the foliar glands ; the hiber- 
nating moths are attracted by the nectar to that part of the field, and con- 
sequently more eggs are there laid. 

Both of these facts have, however, been accounted for by a plausible 
theory, first publicly put forth by Mr. N. A. Davis, of Cherokee County, 
Texas, in 1866 or 1867. In a letter of recent date, Mr. Davis states his 
theory in the following words : 

Hon. Wm. G. Le Due, 

Commissioner of Agriculture : 

Dear Sik : Much has heen said and Avritten, and valuable time and money ex- 
pended in study and experiments to learn the nature and to destroy that great enemy of 
the cotton planter of the South — the cotton-worm. 

The most generally received opinion is that wet seasons produce the worm, and 
tvarm dry seasons kill them. The caterpillar makes its appearance in the warmest 
climates and at the hottest season of the year, and the warmer the climate and the 
hotter the season the greater their thrift and multiplication. If they appear in May 
it will in this latitude require at least 32 days to pass through all their different 
stages ; but from July 1 to September 15 not more that 28 days are necessary. 

That wet seasons are favorable to their protection and multiplication we will not 
deny ; but it is from other causes. 

My observations, beginning in 1866, have fully satisfied me of the fallacy of the 
above theories and as thoroughly convinced me of the fact that the Formica (little red 
ant) is the great friend and protector of the cotton planter of the South. They are 
found by the million in almost every spot of land on which the cotton plant is grown 
over the regions of country liable to the ravages of the worm. In other portions of the 
South not infested by the worm I have noticed this ant in but limited numbers, 
showing the wisdom and goodness of the Divine Distributor for our good. Herewith 
I forward you specimen ant. 

When the weather is favorable all the day long, they, true to their ancient and 
proverbial reputation, are at work climbing every plant and traversing every leaf, 
especially the under side where the egg is deposited, and the young worm makes its 
appearance with the same instinct to find and devour that is found in the miller that 
deposits them there. They devour the eggs and the worm (until about two days old) 
and finally make havoc of the chrysalis. The discovery was accidental. I had been 
watching and experimenting to learn the nature and habits of the worm, to ascertain 
the periods of their difi"erent stages, and to learn the period from one brood to another, 
and the probable number of worms that might be expected from each miller, and on 
this occasion I was gathering chrysalides to see what was the probable number then 



ANTS VS. INFLUENCE OF WEATHER. 135 

on the plant, compared with the number already on the wing. Proposing to myself a 
certain number, I proceeded, but I had not gathered many until my attention was ai- 
rested by the stings of the ants on my hands, revenging themselves on me for dis- 
turbing them while at their noble work of protecting me against my great enemy. 
When I opened the leaves I found a number that contained neither living chrysalis 
nor the shell from which the miller had made its timely exit, but a shell severed in 
twain at the middle of the body. The examination was continued until it was found 
that more than one-half of all I opened had been thus destroyed. 

My curiosity was then excited to know if it were the ants and why the middle was 
made the point of attack. Soon I had the pleasure of witnessing their assault, and 
discovered the reason they regarded the middle as the vulnerable point. When the 
chrysalis was bitten or stung it would move or flounder, each end moving back and 
forth violently, but the middle remained almost motionless. If the ant had taken hold 
of either end it would have been thrown loose or perhaps wounded ; but at the middle 
it could not be wounded nor its hold broken. And in two to five minutes after the 
assault was made the prize was captured, and the slain furnished a bountiful repast 
for all present, say from one to two dozen. 

With this first observation we were not content, but from time to time went and 
watched until every doubt of casualty or uncertainty was removed. And as we had 
begun to form a new theory on witnessing this first victory, and as we were anxious 
to know whose side these little soldiers were fighting on, we felt wo were more than 
repaid for our trouble in being able to perfect that theory, which to our mind was 
fully demonstrated ; and for ten years we have not seen any reason, either from the 
press or our own observation, to change the conclusions at which we then arrived, and 
which we sent to the Texas Farmer and was published in that journal. 

The theory is the following, viz : The ant will protect the cotton plant from the rav- 
ages of the caterpillar if no wet lands are planted and if the high lands are not plowed 
when too wet, either of which may jirove fatal. 

For the last ten years we have seen the miller in May without a single exception, 
and once in April. When the seasons have been wet the worm has appeared in force ; 
when dry they have done no harm. As to the condition or state in which it passes 
through the winter, we are not fully satisfied, for we have seen the miller in midwinter 
in the rotten places of old timbers. 

Suppose in a field of one hundred acres there be one acre of land protected from the 
ant by being too wet for its habitation, for it can neither live nor work on wet lands, 
and by the 1.5th of May one miller makes its deposit of 2,000* eggs, which entomolo- 
gists are agreed is the reasonable number ; now by the same ratio on June 15 we will 
have 4,000,000 ; on Jiily 15 we will have8,000,000,000 worms— enough to consume every 
leaf on the hundred acres and a whole neighborhood besides ; and if we would allow 
the increase to be one-half the above the result will be the same. 

And, again, if there should be half a dozen millers in May to begin the work, how 
vast the number would be seen in July. Yet, with the hope there will be no worms 
this year, planters will risk the planting of that wet acre. 

In the next place, many planters plow their lands when wet, and thereby destroy 
the ant by imbedding them in mortar, from which they cannot extricate themselves. 
If the soil is stirred with a plow while in proper condition it will take it but a few 
hours to repair its house, and then he is ready for the field again. 

When we first presented this theory we were met Avith the statement that by ob- 
servation it was known that the worm sometimes defoliated the highlands first; conse- 
quently the wet-land theory was incorrect. But our observations were not at fault on 
this subject ; for when the fly made its appearance, if the weather was showery or plants 
wet until a late hour in the morning and at an early hour in the evening with the dew, 
it would leave low land for higher ground and drier plants to deposit its eggs. There- 
fore, the highest and driest portions of the field would be the first destroyed; and 

* Figures four times too large. — J. H. C. 



136 REPORT UPON COTTON INSECTS. 

if the fields were all of this character some neighboring fields would sufifer from the 
injudicious example of him who planted low, wet lands. 

Let no wet lands be planted on which the ant cannot live, nor let the highlands be 
plowed while wet to destroy the ant, and I am persuaded that the cotton crop will 
never be destroyed by the worm again. The observance of these facts will do more 
than all the poisons discovered and all the poison-distributers combined to protect 
the planter in his toil and guarantee him the rewards of his hands. 

And, in conclusion, I will say to those that are skeptical, you have but to go to the 
field and see for yourself, and you will no longer be doubtful. 

Hoping these suggestions may lead to inquiry, and that some system will be sug- 
gested that will secure concert of action, even if by legislation, I am, sir. 
Your obedient servant, 

N. A. DAVIS, 

Jacksonville, Tex., August 16, 1879. 

Almost simultaneously with the letter from Mr. Davis in one extreme 
of the cotton belt came a communication from Mr. J. C. Brown, of Willet, 
Barnwell County, South Carolina, the other extreme, expressing almost 
precisely the same views. Mr. Brown introduced this in his reply to the 
1878 circular, which he had retained until this time to make further 
observations. He says : 

The common ant maintains an equilibrium when it is not too wet. The ant will 
destroy the eggs unless the rainy weather keeps it in its retreat. This is the reason 
that a dry season is never a caterpillar one. 

Upon receiving this we wrote to Mr. Brown for further particulars 
and received the following reply : 

Dear Sir : In answer to yours of the 29th instant in relation to cotton-worm and 
whether the common ants were destructive to it, would reply that I have observed 
the ant on the cotton-plant and apparently searching it for prey. During sunny 
weather they are numerous, every cotton-plant having several crawling over it, and 
they do destroy the eggs of the cotton- worm, for I have seen them stop as soon as they 
came across them and eat and carry thera away. In wet weather the ant has retreated 
to its quarters and few can be found anywhere in the cotton field, and the caterpillars 
have undisturbe<l opportunity to multiply and increase. 

We have the worm here now in force, and would be greatly damaged, but its first 
appearance was two weeks too late. And I have noticed that my theory of the ant 
has had additional substantials for its support, for during four or five simny days 
there is a decided increase and activity on the part of the ant and a marked decrease 
of the same on the pari of the worm. 
Yours, respectfully, 

JAMES C. BROWN. 

Willet, Barnavell County, South Carolina. 

This same idea is again expressed by Mr. Douglass M. Hamilton, of 
Saint Francisville, La., in his report, in which he says : "Ants of many 
kinds are found preying on them in good iceather, hut not in had, and this 
is the reason given why the worm increases so much faster in rainy, wet 
weather than in dry and fair weather." 

Mr. Wm. V. Keary, of North Bend, Cheneyville, Parish of Rapides, 
Louisiana, December 17, 1877, in writing to J. Curtis Waldo, says : " The 
cotton caterpillar requires a wet season to accumulate, as such weather 



CONCLUSIONS UPON INFLUENCE OF WEATHER. 137 

is destructive to its natural enemies, the ant, and also an insect called 
the ichneumon," &c. 

Professor Eiley informs me in conversation that the same point has 
been forced upon his attention during his investigations the past summer, 
and it will probably be elaborated in the forthcoming bulletin of the 
United States Entomological Commission. 

The following extracts from Mr. Trelease's note-book are of interest in 
this connection : 

September 10, 1879. — On the second place, where 100 acres are eaten out entirely, I find 
thousands of nearly-grown aletias crawling in every direction. In wet places they are 
not so much molested by ants, for there are few of these ; but on diy, sandy places I 
find ants killing many 1 arva?. * * * Can it be that aletia first appears in wet 
places because the ants are not so numerous there as on high, sandy places ? Early I 
found caterpillars on both bottom and ridge land. Were not most of the latter killed ? 
This theory must be taken in connection with that of the nectar, for certainly there 
are more eggs laid in wet ground. Can it not be that this is jiartly due to the fact 
that more moths are excluded in such places and lay their eggs without leaving them ? 

The one sentence, ^^ Early I found caterpillars on both bottom and ridge 
lands,^^ forms a strong argument for Mr. Davis's theory. 

And now as to our own conclusions : If it can be shown that the num- 
ber of cotton-worms actually killed by the ants is as great as stated by 
the upholders of the theory, then there can be no doubt but that it ac- 
counts for observed facts. In the next chapter is given what evidence 
we have collected as to the efficacy of the ants as destroyers of the cot- 
ton-worm ; but it seems hardly sufficient to warrant us in unqualifiedly 
supporting so broad a theory. We can safely say, though, that the agency 
of the ants is one of the prominent factors in bringing about the dry- 
weather scarcity or wet- weather abundance of the cotton-worm. The 
most important time for the ants to be pursuing their good w^ork is among 
the early broods of worms — in May and June. Every worm killed at 
this time saves the cotton from hundreds later. The numbers of indi- 
viduals in the earlier broods are small, and more appreciable work can 
then be done. Later in the season the abundance of the worms, if they 
have been protected by wet weather earlier, is so marked that an ordi- 
nary change of the weather has small influence over them. 

The law, then, which we should lay down for the influence of weather 
upon the cotton-worm, taking all evidence into consideration, would be: 
A mild winter, followed by a rainy May and June, will usually bring a 
destructive "third crop" of the worms, while an opposite state of the 
weather will be more likely to bring about comparative exemption. 



CHAPTEE VI. 
NATUEAL ENEMIES OF THE COTTON-WORM. 

Prior to any remarks upon remedies, comes, naturally, a chapter upon 
this subject, for the encouragement of the natural enemies of any inju- 
rious insect is the first remedy that suggests itself. In order to pursue 
this subject to the best advantage it will be necessary to divide it into two 
heads — vertebrate and invertebrate enemies. 

VERTEBRATE ENEMIES. 

Of mammals but five have been observed to devour the cotton- worm 
in any of its stages, although, without doubt, several others have the 
habit. These are three domestic and two wild — hogs, dogs, and cats, and 
coons and bats. 

Concerning the fondness of hogs for cotton-worms almost every 
planter can testify. On several occasions, when early broods of the worm 
have strii:)ped the cotton and migrated to adjoining fields, pigs have been 
turned into the road and have devoured enormous numbers. Mr. K. F. 
Henry, of Pickens County, Alabama, states that the hogs become per- 
fectly ravenous for the worms, and if allowed to remain in the cotton- 
field will almost entirely destroy the plant in their efforts to get at them. 

Mr. R. J. Williams, of Mount Meigs, Ala., says: " Hogs will feed and 
fatten on the worms." Mr. J. S. Hausberger, of Tionus, Ala., says: 
"When hogs can get to them they destroy them with the greatest avidity." 
Mr. P. D. Bowles, of Evergreen, Ala., says: "When they leave the field 
and get out so that the hogs can have access to them, they will feed 
upon them." Mr. J. W. Gilmore, of Gaston, Ala., says: " Hogs eat them 
greedily." Mr. C. B. Richardson, of Henderson, Tex., says: "In 1846 
and 1847, after strii:)ping the cotton of leaves and small bolls, the worms 
crawled in millions through the fence into the road, and my hogs prom- 
enaded the road eating them." Instances might be multiplied, but it 
will be unnecessary. 

Many instances of dogs eating the worms have been observed, although 
it is doubtful whether any dog would stoop to it unless on the verge of 
starvation. To the poor dogs of the freedmen, however, the cotton- 
worms are a boon which they are not slow to appreciate. The domestic 
cats^ with their carnivorous tastes, will eat the cotton- worms until they 
are filled to repletion. We have the testimony of Mr. K. B. Dunlap, of 
BoUgee, Ala., as to coons eating the worms. It is probable also that 
both skunks and opossums do some amount of good by eating the worms. 

One of the most effective mammalian enemies of iho. cotton- worm is 
the common "leather-winged hd^V {Vespertilio Sp.). This animal has 
often been observed to catch the moths on the wing at night, and Mr. 

138 



DOMESTIC FOWLS VS. COTTON-WORMS. 13& 

Trelease observed many bats around tlie jujube trees on which the moths 
were collected at night, repeatedly darting under and each time catch- 
ing a moth. It is hard to estimate the amount of good which is accom- 
plished in this way, as with each female moth is usually destroyed some 
hundreds of embryo worms. 

Our list of birds is a longer one. It is probable that the planters in 
general do not sufficiently appreciate the amount of good which birds 
as a class do for them. There are many who at this late date insist that 
no bird will touch the cotton- worm. One correspondent has the follow- 
ing upon this point : 

I have spent much time in watching this point. I have even thrown them among- 
chickens and they refused to touch them. When a field of cotton is devoured, and the 
worms start to travel, moving simultaneously across woodland, road, street, and dam, 
up branches and ravines, I have seen them exposed to birds, flies, hogs, &c., but have 
never seen anything eat them. 

Many hold this opinion, and it is difficult to say what is the cause of it. 

The use of domestic fowls has always been urged as a remedy for the 
cotton-worm, and undoubtedly they can be used to a great advantage. 
It was always the practice of Mr. John Townsend, of Saint John's, S. 0., 
a most successful planter, to scatter corn over the fields to invite the 
notice of wild birds, and while they destroyed the worms upon the top 
cotton he drove his flocks of turkeys into the field to feed upon those 
upon the lower branches.* 

Dr. Chisholm mentions the use of fowls for a similar jiurpose in 
Guiana as long ago as 1801. Mr. Schwarz, in speaking of Mr. J. Dono- 
van, a successful planter of Kushla, Ala., says : 

Mr. Donovan is always able to keep the worms in check by the following simple 
and cheap method: He drives his large flock of turkeys into the field, and if the 
plants are too high a boy brings the worms down by knocking at the plants with a 
stick. This is repeated every day, and this remedy has so far proved a success. Of 
course it can only be api^lied in small fields which are near the house and where the 
cotton plants are not of large size. According to Mr. Donovan, the chickens are very 
fond, too, of the cotton-worms, but, of course cannot reach as high as the turkeys. 

Dr. John Peurifoy, of Montgomery, Ala., makes the following i^ropo- 
sition : 

All the birds feed ujion the moths ; and the barn-yard fowls, even the geese, eat the 
worms with great gusto. And in this connection it occurs to us that henneries might 
be built at proper distances and made a paying institution ; for we have noticed that 
all around the barn-yard the cotton is saved from the worm, and continues to grow 
and develop a full crop for several acres, or as far out as the hens feed, while the 
balance is completely riddled, and the loss at times reaches one-half the crop. This 
proposition would be laughed at if named here, while the planters pay $1.25 per acre 
for Paris green, and if the season be rainy the poison fails and great loss results. 

We will here enumerate a few of the testimonials on the poultry ques- 
tion: 

Domestic fowls eat them voraciously. — [W. W. Hand, Forkland, Greene County^ 
Ala. 



* Seabrook's Memoir, p. 44. 



140 REPORT UPON COTTON INSECTS. 

Turkeys and chickens feed on the worms and chrysalis. Poultry near honses thin 
1;hem out greatly. — [U. H. Powell, Union Springs, Bullock County, Ala. 

Chickens, turkeys, and almost all kinds of fowls are very eager after them in this 
locality. — [J. L. Hausberger, Tionus, Bibb County, Alabama. 

Cotton planted near farm-houses has been greatly protected by the fowls eating 
them. — [J. D. Johnston, Sumterville, Alabama. 

Immediately around the cabin where there is poultry and turkeys, the cotton will 
not be destroyed. — [H. A. Stollewerck, Uniontown, Perry County, Alabama. 

Turkeys eat them eagerly, and a cotton-lield near a dwelling has been preserved by 
the turkeys. Chickens also eat them, but their lieight prevents them from destroying 
them as effectually as the turkeys. — A. Jay, Jayville, Conecuh County, Alabama. 

Chickens, turkeys, and geese eat them. — [F. M. Meekin, Morrison's Mills, Alachua 
•County, Florida. 

Chickens are very destructive to them. The guinea-chicken is of more value, as it 
travels farther. — [S. P. Odom, Drayton, Dooly County, Georgia. 

When the worms are mmierous the fowls and birds gather to the cotton-fields and 
remain there, daily feeding on them. — [D.M.Hamilton, Saint Francisville, West 
Feliciana Parish, Louisiana. 

The common fowls will eat them. — [Jno. A. Maryman, East Feliciana Parish, 
Louisiana. 

Having occasion to move my fowls during the summer to a location near the cotton 
fields my chickens took to the field and ate so many worms that they did not care for 
•other kind of food, and seemed to do well on them. Turkeys and guinea-fowls are 
very fond of them. — [C. F. Sheirod, Columbus, Lowndes County, Mississippi. 

Ducks, geese, and chickens, most small birds, and especially turkeys, wild and 
tame. — [C. Welch, Station Creek, Covington, Mississippi. 

Chickens and turkeys also feed on them. They both soon learn to find the chrysalis. 
I have often s«>eu chickens jumi)ing up for them. A few years ago I called to see a 
friend in an adjoiniug county who had a large plantation, and found his cotton 
stripped of its leaves, except a ten acre field near his house. On inquiry, he told me 
that his turkeys had kept the worms from inpiring that field. It was then the third 
crop of worms. — [W. Spillman, Enterprise, Clark County, Mississippi. 

Our domestic turkeys are the greatest enemies of the worm. — [Geo. F. Webb, Amite 
Coimty, Mississippi. 

I saved a small lot of cotton near the residence by feeding the turkeys in it. — [C. B. 
Richardson, Henderson, Rush County, Texas. 

From these multiplied eWdences it seems clear, notwithstanding con- 
trary reports, that much can be done toward the extermination of the 
cotton -worm with the aid of domestic fowls where poisons are not used; 
this latter contingency, of course, rendering it necessary to carefully 
isolate the fields from poultry. Concerning the general use of fowls as 
insect-destroyers, Prof. Samuel Aughey has the following : * 

It is also probable that the value of chickens and turkeys for the general destruc- 
tion of insects is underestimated. Those who have carefully examined the stomachs 
of chickens and turkeys taken at random from a farm-yard have often been surprised 
at the number of insects that they had confiscated. One turkey that I purchased in 
a butcher-shop in Liucobi, Nebr., in October, 1874, had 47 locusts and 23 other insects 
in its stomach. One that I dissected in October, 1873, had in its stomach 53 of our 
common insects. When domesticated they ret ain the eating habits of their wild state 
and take every insect that crosses their path. I have rarely examined the stomachs 
-of chickens without finding some insects. The exceptions to this rule have been gen- 



First Annual Report, U. S. E. C. on Rocky Mountain Locust, p. 339. 



BIRDS REPORTED BY CORRESPONDENTS. 141 

erally those that have been kept in confinement. The farmer, therefore, who makes 
provision for a large amount of poultry on his lands, accomplishes a double purpose : 
His profits are to that extent increased, and a large number of insects that would 
damage his crops are destroyed. 

These are the precise sentiments of Doctor Chisholm when he said : 

A prudent economical planter will increase the brood of every species of domestic 
poultry, particularly turkeys, for this has a tendency to diminish the brood of the 
chenille in a very great degree, while profit arises from the augmentation of useful 
stock. Turkeys are observed to have a remarkable appetite for the larvae of the cot- 
ton-moth and devour prodigious quantities of them. 

And now let us turn from the consideration of domestic birds to that 
of wild birds. It has long been noticed that the cotton near the edge 
of the field where there were trees and bushes was not eaten by the 
worms, and this we can safely ascribe to the good offices of the birds. 
In many parts of the South the amount of good performed by these 
little friends of the planters is not appreciated, and they are shot indis- 
criminately by the ignorant freedmen and others. The subject as to 
what particular species destroy the worms has been studied but little 
in this investigation, and we are obliged to rely upon the random reports 
of correspondents. From these we have gathered the following partial 
list: 

1. The painted bunting or nonpareil {Cyanospiza ciriSj Linn). This 
bird was found nesting on cotton at Macon Station, Ga., and as, accord- 
ing to the best authorities, its food is to a great extent insects, it may 
safely be put down as a destroyer of the cotton-worm. 

2. The indigo bird [Cyanospiza cyanea, Baird). Observed by Mr. 
Trelease to destroy the cotton worm. 

3. The mockingbird {Mimus polyglottus, Linn). This bird, whose 
food consists principally of insects, has been reported from all over the 
South as being a great cotton-worm eater. 

4. The bluebird {Sialia sialis, Baird). The food of this bird also con- 
sists principally of insects, and it has often been seen to destroy the 
cotton -worm. 

5. The rice-bu'd, or bobolink, or reed hird-{Dolichonyx oryzivorus, 
Swainson), is reported by Professor Willet to feed upon the cotton- worm. 

G. The "yellow oriole" {Icterus haltimoref) has been seen by Mr. G. 
W. Smith-Vaniz, of Canton, Miss., in numbers, devouring the cotton- 
worm. 

7. The "yellow-jacket" (C/irysomi^m fm^is"? Bonap). This is a pop- 
ular name which is extremely indefinite and cannot be found among the 
popular names adopted by modern ornithologists. It may refer to the 
common yellow-bird or thistle bird or American goldfinch. 

8. The bee-martin or Mng-hird {Tyrmnus caroUneiisis, Baird). This 
bird, which feeds almost exclusively on winged insects, is perhaps the 
oftenest quoted as a cotton-worm moth destroyer of all birds. It is, 
according to one correspondent, a common sight to see them darting 
about a field towards dusk, catching the moths on the wing or search- 
ing for them under the leaves. 



142 REPORT UPON COTTON INSECTS. 

9. The barn-swallow {Hirundo horreorum, Bartx)n). This bird also has 
been observed to catch the moth on the wing. 

10. The night-hawk or bull-bat {Chordeiles Virginianus) has been 
often seen to catch adult Aletia on the wing at dusk. 

11. Ked-wing blackbird {Agelaius phcenicus, Vieillot). These birds de- 
stroy immense numbers of the cotton-worms. 

12. Cow blackbird [Molothoris pecoris, Swainson). 

13. Rain crow or yellow-billed cuckoo {Goccygus Americamis, Bonap.). 
"The rain crow feeds voraciously on them," (W. A. Harris, Isabella, 
Worth County, Georgia). All through Georgia and Alabama this bird 
is first mentioned in answer to the question, "What birds feed on the 
cottou-wormf " 

14. Loggerhead or Southern shrike {Colluris ludoviciatms, Baird). 

15. The field sparrow {Spizellafimlla). 

16. The chipping sparrow {SpizeUa socialis). 

17. The song sparrow {Melospiza melodia). 

18. The lesser sap-sucker {Picus puhescens^ Linn.). 

19. The wild turkey {Melengris gaUopavOj var. gaUopavo). Concerning 
this bird INIr. Trelease says : " Wild turkeys frequent Mr. Melton's plan- 
tation in search of the catei^pillar, and the plantation is covered with 
their tracks. They are seen here, and I believe they have been seen 
catching the worms." Mr. P. D. Bowles says: "The wild turkey has 
been known to feed upon them in the field near the swamps," and Mr. 
J. i^. Gilmore remarks, "The wild turkey is particularly fond of them." 

20. The quail [Ortyx Virginianns, Bona\).) feeds upon the cotton- worm, 
according to Professor Willet. 

21. Partridge, ruffed grouse or pheasant {Bonasa umbellus, var. umbel- 
lus, Stephens). 

22. Prairie chicken, prairie hen, or pinnated grouse [Ciipidonia cupido, 
var. cupido, Baird). 

The great majority of our correspondents replied that "all birds" or 
"all insectivorous birds" eat the worms, without specifying the kind, 
and the list is made up of the commoner species which are incidentally 
mentioned, and may therefore be accepted as containing the names of 
those birds which perhaps do the most good. 

The good will with which the native sparrows destroy the cotton-worm 
and the reported efficacy of the English sparrow in ridding the Northern 
cities of the canker worm have led many Southern planters to believe 
firmly in the feasibility and ad\isability of introducing this latter bird 
upon the Southern plantations. Many letters like the following have 
been received : 

Prof. J. H. Comstock: 

Dear Sir : Several planters request me to see what can be done with the European 
sparrow as an enemy of the cotton-worm ; I therefore \sTite to see if you consider it 
advisable to send me several pairs of the birds to be liberated on the plantation where 
I now am, and provided with nesting, gourds, &c. Being a social bird and fond of 
living in cities I do not know how the experiment would succeed, nor do I krow how 



( 



PZXPERIENCE WITH THE ENGLISH SPARROW. 143 

the sparrow would use the oat crop in the spring. I shall be thankful for any informa- 
tion as to this, and also on such efforts as may already have been made to introduce 
the sparrows in the cotton-growing districts. 
Very truly yours, 

W. T . 

Selma, Ala., July 28, 1879. 

Here is another of the same drift : 

Mr. J. H. COMSTOCK : 

Dear Sir -, * * * The first field has an orchard on one side and forest trees on 
two other sides, and I observe numbers of yellow orioles (?) everywhere among the 
cotton very busy searching the stalks. This circumstance is, I think, explanatory of 
the paucity of the caterpillars iu that field, although the cotton is older and consider- 
ably larger than the other, and the worm first appeared there. I am of the opinion, 
furthermore, that we have hero the key to the method of warfare that is to be waged 
against the destructive pest — birds ! I think it is possible that the English sparrow 
may be the only thing that can save us from the incalculable losses wrought by the 
worm, and I hojie that the department will distribute a number of them to reUable 
agents at different ^joints and have results noted and made public, &c. 
Very respectfully, 

GEORGE W. SMITH VANIZ. 

Canton Miss, July 26, 1879. 

Before taking the course outlined by these gentlemen, the subject needs 
to be carefully looked at on all sides. There are, in the first place, argu- 
ments against the good to be accomplished by such a course, and, in the 
next place, strong evidences of probable harm. Prof. F. H. King, of 
Eiver Falls, Wis., in a letter of recent date has the following on this 
point : 

If you will not deem it presumptuous in me, allow me to suggest that it is barely 
possible that the English house sparrow will not thrive in the warm cotton districts. 
This caution is brought to mind by the fact that the sparrow in Europe does not live 
in Spain or Italy, and, by what appears to be a fact in this country, that they are 
spreading westward from Boston, New York, and Philadelphia much faster than south- 
ward, and further by the fact that in the Northern States and in Europe wherever 
they take up their abode there they spend the winter. 

One other peculiarity in the habits of this bird appears to me to argue seriously 
against its general usefulness to the cotton-grower. It is peculiarly partial to cities, 
aud the larger the city the better. Fiom these haunts, so far as I am yet able to learn, 
it only makes occasional flights to the immediately adjacent country when food at 
home is scanty. 

This latter point has been verified by experience. A year or so since 
the sparrows were introduced in Bibb County, Georgia, with a view of 
destroying the cotton- worms ; but they almost immediately forsook the 
plantations, and were last year seen nesting about a church in the city 
of Macon. 

For the past few years a spirited discussion has been going on rela- 
tive to the merits and demerits of the English sparrow in the North, 
and, in spite of a strong resistance on the part of the friends of the 
sparrow, the general tide of scientific oi)iuion seems to be setting against 
them. There can be no better place for collecting the opinions of the 
leading participants in this discussion than here in answer to the many 



144 REPORT UPON COTTON INSECTS. 

demands for the sparrows from the South. The first item which we shall 
quote is from The Country, being a report of a discussion on the bird 
by the Nuttall Ornithological Club, of Cambridge, Mass. 

SPARROWS BROUGHT TO JUDGMENT. 
[Communicated officially by the Club.l 

At a meeting of the Niittall Ornithological Chib, of Cambridge, Mass., held on Jan- 
uary 28, 1878, the evening was devoted to a discussion of the English or house spar- 
row in America. In order to obtain a fair expression of opinion on the subject from 
the ornithologists of the vicinity, notice of the proposed consideration of the subject 
was sent to all the resident members of the Club, and several of the corresponding 
members Avere invited to contribute. In view of the great practical and economic 
interest of the subject to the general public, the secretary of the Club was requested 
to prepare a report of the discussion for publication, which is herewith appended. 
The result of the canvass, it may be premised, was a decision most decidedly unfavor- 
able to the value and attractiveness of the sparrow in the United States. 

The president of the Club, Mr. William Brewster, remarked that wlieu the sparrows 
were first introduced he was disposed to view them in the light of a blessing. He rec- 
ollected, when they were still an uncommon sight among us, that he noticed a small 
colony nesting in a martin-house in Medford. The numerous apartments in the box 
were occupied by martins and sparrows in about equal numbers, and the birds were 
sitting peaceably together on the ledge or carrying in food to their young or sitting 
mates. This, he stated, was the only observation he had ever made tending to show 
these birds in a favorable light. 

Since their permanent establishment in this locality they had certainly driven away 
many of our native species, though he did not say that this result is as yet so marked 
in his neighborhood as elsewhere, where the sparrows had become more numerous. In 
Washington, in 1873, he saw the English sparrow in the city parks and public sqnares 
in limited numbers, but none in the Smithsonian grounds, where song sparrows, Ijlack 
snowbirds, bluebirds, and a few other species abounded. During a visit to Washing- 
ton the present winter not a single native bird was observed in those grounds. The 
noisy foreigners had taken their places, and nearly every tree and clump of bushes re- 
sounded with their querulous, disagreeable chattering. Mr. Chas. M. Carpenter, of 
Providence, R. I., had informed him that in that city the sparrows were fast banishing 
the home varieties, especially waging war on such as select boxes for their nesting- 
sites, and that the new-comer was regarded there as an unmitigated nuisance. As for 
claims for the bird on the ground of having exterminated or even materially diminished 
the numbers of the insects that prey upon the shade trees in Boston or vicinity, the 
speaker thought we should be extremely careful how we credit them with what may 
have been the result of other and less conspicuous agencies. Insects, as well as many 
other organic creatures, are well known to pass through periodical cycles of excessive 
abundance and comparative scarcity. Granting that in Boston the Orgyia pest was 
much abated through several successive years after the spanows were introduced in that 
city, we had no right to give the sparrows credit for that occurrence. Circumstances 
may have favored the sparrows. Had not this insect just passed through a cycle of 
comparative scarcity ? If the sparrows acted to any great extent as destroying agents, 
having once fairly obtained the upper hand, why did they not keep these insects down? 
During the past summer the larvae of the species in question had again appeared in 
formidable swarms on Boston Common and vicinity, yet the number of sparrows had 
probably quadrupled every year. 

Mr. H. A. Purdie t)b8erved that last summer he published, in the Boston Advertiser 
of July 30, a short article, speaking of the hordes of caterpillars that had then been 
infesting the trees of the common, and of Bowdoin street ; and later, their cocoons 



NUTTALL CLUB ON THE ENGLISH SPARROW. 145 

wer* to be seen hj tbousancls on both trees, bouses, and fences. These caterpillars 
were the larvai of the tussock plumed or vaporer moth, the Orgyia leuco stigma of ento- 
mologists. The city forester, Mr. Galviu, soon had a f jrce of men removing the 
cocoons and killing the crawling things, for the sparrow gave both a wide berth. 
The ravages of these pests among the foliage was so great that in some instances whole 
trees were "chewed up," although each tree had one or more occupied bird-boxes. la 
the Advertiser of December 6 there appeared a communication headed "Justice to 
the Sparrow." It was, in part, a reply to the July article above referred to. This 
writer claimed, on the authority of Mr. Galvin and two policemen, that the cater- 
pillars had been wholly restricted to a narrow strip north of the path leading from 
Winter to Spruce street, or to about one-tenth of the common. This Mr. Purdie pos- 
itively denied. Again, the writer called particular attention to the fact that the 
November rains, soaking the cocoons, rendered yielding and pliable these envelopes, 
impervious to any bird, and firmly glued to the trees when dry ; the sparrows were 
thus enabled to devour the clusters of eggs in these "receptacles," which they were 
seen doing. Mr. Purdie replied that the wingless female imago of Orgyia, crawling 
from the inside simply to the outside of her cocoon, deposits there her eggs, covering 
them with a frothy matter, which, on drying, becomes brittle. The eggs are thus 
easily accessible to a strong-beaked bird like the sparrow. The cocoons everywhere 
conspicuous are not "impervious," but often so thin and slight that the inclosed in- 
sect can be seen through the walls. The larvae are greatly subject to the attacks of 
various parasites, and entomologists know that in collecting the cocoons in winter ia 
order to destroy them, none but such as have the egg masses glued upon them need 
be taken, as all others contain the empty male chrysalis, some friendly parasite, or 
spiders and their eggs. Therefore, it was these foes of the tussock moth, the bene- 
ficial spiders, that the sparrows were so eagerly hunting after, wben they attacked 
the "contents" of the cocoons. 

As to our native l>irds. Mr. Purdie was .^•onfident of their diminished numbers since 
the introduction of the foreigu sparrow. Formerly he had observed about fifty species 
of small birds on and about the public garden and common in Boston at dilferent sea- 
sons of the year, and from fifteen to twenty were summer residents, raising their young 
in the midst of the city. Now, these birds do not visit the city. 

Mr. H. D. Minot said the house-sparrows were quarrelsome and noisy. He had seen 
them drive away and sometimes even kill other birds and eat sound leaf and fruit 
buds. They often frequented infested trees, especially where they have no boxes, 
without disturbing the worms. Trees could better be protected by artificial means. 
Last summer those elms about Harvard College which were properly tarred but not 
frequented by the sparrows were almost intact, while most of the trees outside, not 
cared for except by these birds, were largely or wholly stripped of foliage. As shown 
in Europe, it is the tendency of small wild birds, if not persecuted, to draw nearer to 
man and civilization. As this country becomes more thickly settled, our native si^ecies 
would have iucreased (not decreased) in the neighborhood of cities, and have sup- 
plied our needs as insect-destroyers, had we not checked them by introducing a for- 
eign sparrow which was now spreading far and wide and driving native birds of much 
greater value before it. As regards the testimony of Dr. Thomas Brewer, the span-ows' 
chief advocate, he stated emphatically, and from long personal observation, first, that 
the indigenous birds on Boston Common had materiallj^ decreased within five years, 
both in numbers and variety, robins alone yet holding their own ; second, that Mr. 
Galvin, the city forester, and the police to whom Dr. Brewer had referred, were not 
competent witnesses in this case : and third, that, as to the green appearance of the 
common in September, it should be borne in mind that a tree may be defoliated in 
June or July and well clothed again in autumn. The dirty habits of the sparrows, 
Mr. Minot thought, and the uusightliness of their boxes, greatly counteracted the 
pleastire to be derived from all their supposed ^^rtues. 

Mr. Theodore Roosevelt, jr., of New York, said that some years ago sparrows were 

10 CI 



146 REPORT UPON COTTOX INSECTS. 

apparently of service iu New York City in destroying canker-worms ; but last year 
worms were very abundant iu the gardens of that city and not interferred with by the 
bmls. In America he had never observed them molest grain, but in Egypt he had 
seen them feeding iu the fields in flocks of many hundred, and on shooting them their 
croi)a were found to coutaiu ouly grain. He had often watched them assault snow- 
birds, song and chipping sparrows, aud had known them to kill a yellow-billed wood- 
pecker, actually mobbing it to death. Other birds, as purple martins, he knew 
they had driven away by occupying their boxes very early in the spring. This im- 
migrant had spread into the surrounding country, and at West Point, on the Hud- 
sou, land owners had been obliged to shoot them, as they destroyed the buds of fruit 
trees and drove away the soug birds.* 

Mr. Ruthven Deaue stated that he had repeatedly seen the sparrows attack and drive 
oft" our native species. These instances were witnessed both on Boston Common and 
in gardens in Cambridge. He referred to one instance where a white-bellied swallow 
returned to her nest iu a martin-house attached to the trunk of an elm; a cockney 
gparrow (which had not previously been reared in the box, nor had any of his ances- 
tors) was perched upon the ridge-pole, and disputed the swallow's right by attacking 
and forcing her to the ground, and leaving her only to resume his position on the ridge- 
pole. 

Mr. Dcane also read the following letter, which, though addressed to Dr. Brewer, 
was recently sent (a^jparently as an "open letter") to Mr. Deane for publication: 

'<Dr. T. M. Brewer: 

"Dear Sir: I want to ask of you a reply to these facts, in regard to the diet of 
English sparrows habituated to our climate, which I have with the greatest care ob- 
tained, and with no prejudice, of course, to the scientific results : Last season I obtained 
39 individual sparrows, during the height of the canker-worm pest, in the Jamaica 
Plain district (uear Boston); about an equal number of males aud females. These 
birds had beeu allowed to gather any food they liked, and their houses were placed in 
the midst of several elms infested with worms. On dissection no insect or worm, whole 
or in part, could be found in their digestive tract even with the glass, but grain, oats, 
seeds, and gravel, alone gave evidence, distinct iu these cases, of a granivorous life. 
I have never, as yet, met with a like series of experiments on your part, and hence I 
desire to have a brief reason for your assertions to the contrary in different papers. 
"I am, very respectfully, 

JOHN DIXWELL, M. D. 

Hotel Boylstox, Boston, January .3, 1878." 

Messrs. C. F. Batchelder and Walter Woodman both supported Messrs. Minot's and 
Deane's statements as to the decrease of many singing-birds in Cambridge, and espe- 
cially that of the house-wren, a most valuable insect-destroyer. 

Mr. A. M. Frayer, of Watertown, remarked that he did uot think we should look 
into the city to see what we are to expect from the house-sjiarrow, but to the suburbs, 
where it is yet living in a more natural condition. This last summer a flock of about 
a dozen took up their residence near a small patch of standing rye, and before it was 
time to harvest the grain the gourmands had eaten every kernel and beaten down the 
straw. On Loug Island, New York, the native birds, for the last five years, had been 
steadily decreasing as the alien increased. 

Mr. J. A. Allen stated that, although ho had hitherto purposely kept out of the spar- 
row controversy, it had uot been from any lack of interest in the subject. He had 
believed the subject to be not so one-sided as many have assumed; that the sparrows 

* Plenty of confirmatory evidence is observable in New York City to-day, although 
here no public provision is made for feeding the sparrows. In City Hall Square, par- 
ticularly, the cocoons of Orgyia moths are to be seen in large quantities ou both elms 
and maples. Iu many cases the bird-boxes iu these trees at present inhabited by the 
sparrows are almost completely covered by a crowded thatch of chrysalids. — Ed. 



OPINION OF THE NUTTALL CLUB. 147 

are not quite such unmitigated pests as they have sometimes been represented to be, 
nor, on the other hand, quite so unalloyed a benefaction as some have claimed. While 
they have some good points, they are certainly not lacking in bad ones. Before 
taking sides on a question of so much importance, he had waited for the accumulation 
of evidence — iu other words, till the sparrows had so increased in numbers that our 
knowledge of their proclivities would enable us to judge of the results of an experi- 
ment that at first seemed praiseworthy. The sparrows, it is true, came to us with a 
bad name, and many a wise one ou the other side of the Atlantic had warned us of the 
consequeuces of what they termed an act of folly. 

The introduction of the European house-sparrow to the principal cities of the Atlan- 
tic seaboard and to many of those of the interior, he continued, has been made mainly 
within the last ten or twelve years ; but in consequence of their remarkable power of 
reproduction and their pampered lives, protected, as they have been, from all natural 
checks upon their increase, and at the same time provided with an abundance of food 
and innumerable resting sites, they have already so multiplied in many places that 
they have begun to spread into the adjoining rural districts. While to some degree 
annoying, even in the cities, by their harsh cries and ceaseless clamor, and other not 
wholly agreeable acts, the report comes to us that they are already rendering them- 
selves obnoxious to the farmer and horticulturist by their attacks upon the crops. 
An equally serious charge against them is their influence upon our native birds, for 
the increase of the sparrow is everywhere coincident with a decrease of onr far more 
desirable native species. 

Having had his attention called of late rather strongly to the subject, Mr. Allen had 
been led not only to collect his own oljservations on this subject, but to seek informa- 
tion from localities beyond his own immediate vicinity ; and on weighing the evidence, 
had been rather surprised at the preponderance of facts unfavorable to the sparrows. 
As regards the favorable side of the case, he stated that he had no doubt that the 
sparrows, in no suiall degree, held in check the canker-worms and other obnoxious 
caterpillars. During the last thi'ce or four years he had had very favorable opportu- 
nities for observations. During this period the elms in the vicinity of his house have 
had no other protection than that afforded by the English sparrows, yet they have 
retained their foliage in excellent condition, while other trees not many yards distant, 
unfrequented by the sparrows, and also in no way protected, have l)een almost wholly 
stripped of their leaves. The canker-worm moths laid their eggs freely on all the 
trees here referred to, and the eggs hatched on all in apparently equal abundance; 
but when the sparrows were in sufficient force, they checked their ravages before 
they had time to do serious harm. He had observed the sj^arrows, day after day, dur- 
ing the cauker-worm season hunting amoug the leaves for caterpillars and seizing 
them. So far as regards this part of the subject, there is neither influence nor guess- 
work, but visual proof. The destmction of a few caterpillars, however, he regards as 
almost the sole good that can be adduced in their favor. Their presence in small 
numbers, and especially in winter, is indeed cheery and pleasant ; Init when in force 
theiv harsh chatter becomes a positive nuisance, and even iu summer renders the notes 
of other birds singing in the neighboring trees almost uudistinguishable. 

In regard to the unfavorable side of the score the list of charges is a long one, and 
the greater part are too well attested to admit of reasonable doubt. First in the list 
is their unfavorable influence upon our native birds. Ordinarily, so far as his obser- 
vations extend, he believed they were not violently aggressive, but readily became so 
whenever there Avas a conflict of interest, and occasionally without provocation. The 
little chipping sparrows commonly associated with them on terms of intimacy and 
harmony, and rarely had he seen them pursue or attack other birds when meeting with 
them at a distance from their own domiciles. But that they do, Ijy their abundance 
and petulance, tend to crowd out and supplant our native birds seems nearly unquest ion- 
able, since the latter disappear whenever the house sjjarrows become abundant. Upon 
such species as have a preference for nesting-sites similar to their own, they do exert, 



148 REPORT UPON COTTON INSECTS. 

however, a most positive influence. These are bluebirds, white-bellied swallows, 
purple martins, and wrens — birds of attractive ways, agreeable notes, and highly in- 
sectivorous in their diet. When the sparrows were first introduced in Cambridge, 
probably at least a dozen bird-houses were put up to each pair of sparrows. The 
result was that the native species just mentioned found abundant nesting-j)laces, and 
at once became more abundant than formerly. As the sparrows rapidly increased, 
they very naturally possessed themselves of the bird-boxes aud forced their former 
occupants elsewhere. He cited the following instances as having fiiUen under his 
observation : 

Three years ago no less than three pairs of Avrens and as many pairs each of blue- 
birds and white-bellied swallows raised their young in boxes in sight of his windows. 
The following year one-half disappeared, and last year not one of these nine pairs of 
native birds had a representative left within this small area. Not that all the boxes 
were occupied by the sparrows, but they claimed possession of all and by force of 
numbers retained them. In most cases the former occupants, finding their homes 
already in the possession of their enemies, appeared to make no struggle to regiiiu 
them, a reconnaissance of the field apjiare-tly satisfying them of the hopelessness of 
any such attempt ; in other cases they were not given up without long and hard- fought 
battles. On inquiry he found that similar incidents have been observed in neighbor- 
ing parts of Cambridge. Besides this, instances of uncalled-for aggression ha<l come 
to his notice, one of which he had himself observed. Last year a colony of sparrows, 
not content with three times as many boxes as they had use for, to gain possession of 
which they had dispossessed wrens and swallows, attacked a pair of roMns that very 
unwisely, as it proved, had cho.sen a nesting-site in an elm close to this pugnacious 
colony, by which they were so persistently harassed that they had to abaudon ilieir 
completed nest and its, to them, precious contents. 

In this connection Mr. Allen read a conmninication from Mr. Robert Ridgway, of 
Washington, D. C, in relation to the effect of the s))arrows upon the native birds, in 
which Mr. Ridgway stated that since the appearance of the house sjtarrow in that 
city, the native species, including suchbright-colored and musical birds iis the Balti- 
more and orchard oriole and blue-l>irds, as well as purple martins, cat-ljir<ls, song- 
sparrows, &c., have neai-ly abandoned the city. Before the sparrows came these anil 
others were abundant in all the public parks and ■ reservations. The sparrows h.ave 
now spread in strong force throughout the city, and the native birds hav(; either in 
part or entirely disappeared, the sparrows abovinding to the " almost utter exclusion 
of other birds." These he gives as the facts of the case, without claiming that the 
increase of the sjiarrows aud the decrease of the indigenous species held the relation 
of "cause and effect." The native species, he claims, combine all the ]n-aiseworthy 
traits possessed by the sparrows with either beauty of plumage or the gift of song, 
neither of which qualities belong to the introduced birds. He regards the latter as 
only exceptionally insectivorous, while the s)iecies they supplant are prominently so. 
He also alludes to the well-known habits of the si)arrows as street birds, from which 
source they derive a large share of their food. 

Mr. Allen further stated that every ornithologist of note throughout the country 
who has expressed himself upon the subject (and nearly all have done so) has, almost 
without exception, declared against the sparrow. Not a few of them consider their 
rapid increase an alarming evil, that will soon call for legislative action to hold it in 
check. Their influence upon the native species is <m all sides spoken of as deleterious. 
They are aggressive and jjugnacious by nature, and, if not by actual attacks upon 
the native birds, will crowd them out by their excessive numbers. The introduced 
sparrow is to a greater extent a granivorous feeder than most of our own species of the 
same family, and subsists upon an insect diet only exceptionally, and not as a rule, as 
is the case with many of the species their unchecked increase will most surely sup- 
plant. They were, however, ostensibly introduced for the purpose of keeping in check 
certain insect pests, and in some cases seem to have been of service in this regard. 



OPINION OF THE NUTTALL CLUB. 149 

Hitherto by far the worst of these in Eastern Massachusetts has been the canker-worm. 
The sparrows, under certain conditions, feed freely upon these, both in the imago and 
larva states, and if numerous enough would doubtless do much to keep them in check. 
But to do this, several pairs of sparrows are evidently necessary for the protection of 
each tree subject to the attacks of the canker-worms. 

In order to have the sparrows effective, they must have their homes in the trees; 
hence it will be necessary to provide two or three bird-houses for each individual tree 
of the millions of elm, apple, and other trees that the canker-worms infest, and to wait 
for the sparrows to multiply so as to occupy them before we can hope for the jirotec- 
tion of the trees by the sparrows. 

With the known predilection of sparrows for the buds of fruit-trees and for ripening 
grain, to say nothing of the other depredations they are known to commit, respecting 
which we have testimony from the Old World as well as at home, shall we not have 
burdened ourselves with a tenfold worse pest than the canker-worms prove to be ? 
But every one who has given attention to the subject knows that we do not need the 
help of the sparrows for the suppression of the canker-worms. There are various 
effective devices for the prevention of the descent of the female moth, and for her de- 
struction before r-eaching those portions of the tree she seeks for oviposition. What 
we need is an enlightened pitblic opinion that shall enforce, by statutory enactments, 
the i)rotectiou of our fruit and shade trees by already well-known available means, 
making it a penal ofteuse for any person to neglect the protection of any trees on his 
premises subject to the attacks of the canker-worms. The sparrows are hence a need- 
less and deleterious addition to our fauna, which threatens to soon prove a pest it may 
be no easy task to eradicate. Instead of being pampered and protected, they should 
be, if not at once expelled, at least left to take their chances in the struggle for ex- 
istence without the advantage of the shelter and the food they now tind so abundantly 
provided for them by unwise human foresight. They should not only be placed on 
the same footing as the native species, but all laws for their protection should be re- 
jiealed, so that every fruit-grower or farmer who tinds them detrimental to his inter- 
est can protect himself by summary means, if he chooses, from their inroads without 
the risk of a legal prosecution. 

In concluding his remarks, Mr. Allen read, as further contribution to the subject 
under discussion, a communication from Dr. Charles C. Abbott, of Trenton, N. J., 
which Dr. Abbott had kindly forwarded to be read before the Nuttall Club. Dr. Abbott 
wiote : 

" llif house sparrows have been very abundant within thi' city limits of Trenton 
for about ten years; and only within the past two years have they wandered there- 
from, except as single stragglers. Even now they are not j)ermanent residents of the 
rural districts, but come and go in lai-ge tiocks, apparently on foraging expeditions. 
My attention has frequently been called to their depredations committed in town gar- 
dens; and I have long known that the fruit and leaf buds of peach, plum, cherry, and 
pear trees were eagerly devoured by them when such trees were growing in the city. 
Friends of the sparrow claimed that it arose from a scarcity of food, and were the 
birds fed with crumbs of bread, and similar scraps thrown from kitchen-doors, the 
trees would not be molested. This, however, is not true, for even after being gorged 
with bread and rice they have been seen to pick these buds from the trees and drag 
them ' o the ground. 

" I have several times watched flocks or colonies of these birds on my own farm, 
three miles from the city, and have also noticed some of their habits as a street-fre- 
quenting bird, and have the following serious charges to make against them : 

"First. They are carnivorous ; eagerly destroying and devouring the eggs and newly- 
hatched young of other birds. Instances of this I have frequently witnessed. 

"Secondly. They are as cruel as butcher-birds, and will harass, maim, and often kiU 
other birds. As an instance, a pair of sparrows have been seen to attack, while in its 
nest, a bkiebird, and so injure it that it could not escape from or defend itself against 
subsequent attacks as it fluttered from the nesting-place. 



150 REPORT UPON COTTON INSECTS. 

"Thirdly. Their increase, often four broods in a year, is such that, if they do not 
drive off other and more desirable species, they will soon crowd them out, and force 
our songsters to quit their ancient habitats from want of food. 

"Fourthly. Their decided preference for fruit and leaf buds over animal food (t. e., 
insect larva)) renders them decidedly a pest to horticulturists. 

"Fifthly. They are already, often in large flocks, beginning to visit our grain-fields 
and destroy a large amount of wheat and rye. Their habits in the grain-fields are 
much the same as those of the reed-birds on the reeds. They cling to the stalk with 
all the agility of that bird and strip the head of grain of nearly every kernel. Just as 
the reed-birds visit, in untold millions, the rice plantations, and destroy so much of 
that grain, so, before long will the coming legions of sj^arrows attack our wheat 
and rye. 

"I might add a dozen objections other than tliese, but have we not here sufficient to 
demonstrate that the introduction of this bml was the introduction of a pest?" 

At the close of the discussion a vote was taken on the question of whether or not, in 
the opinion of those present, the further increase of the house si)arrows in this country 
was desirable. The result was a unanimous negatice. 

H. A. PURDIE, 
Secrctari/ Xuttall Ornithological Club. 

And now for an article on the other side. Dr. H. A. Hageu, profes- 
sor of entomology in Harvard University, published the following article 
in the American Agriculturist for May, 1878 : 

The decisions of the "Nuttall Club," of which a re^mrt is given in No. 18 of the "N. 
y. Country," are based upon observations contradicting in several j)oints the older 
ones, which are accepted by science, in the most decided manner. It appears by the 
report that the Club either had no knowledge of these earlier observations, covering a 
space of more than a century, and sustained by ornithologists of well-known reputa- 
tion, or that it did not deem it worth while to compare its own observations with 
earlier ones, whidi ought to have been done to fulfill the well-known demands of 
science. The sparrow literature is large, and opinions during the past century have 
considerably changed, until the final decision is most decidedly favorable to its value. 

I will select only three authors, who are omithologists, each one an authority for 
the economic natural history of his time, covering a space of one hundred years, and 
showing the gradual progress of the opinion as to the value of the sparrow. 

Mr. T. F. Bock, in 1784, considered the sparrow simply as a nuisance, so injurious 
and obnoxious that he demanded that the legislature should be applied to for its de- 
struction; this was carried out several times with such pernicious ettect that the spar- 
row had to be introduced again. It is not necessary to give Mr. Bock's decisions, as 
they are exactly identical — the carnivorous and nnirderous habits excepted— with 
those of the Nuttall Club in 1878. 

Ml". F. M. Bechstein, in 1795, says: "The food of the sparrow, insects and grain, 
indicates him to be beneficial instead of injurious. In spring he visits all fiuit-trees, 
collects caterpillars from the leaves and flowers, and kills an exceedingly large num- 
ber of May-beetles to feed his young. In summer he lives on the seeds of lettuce and 
spinach, on young pears, cherries, grapes, and berries. In the fall he goes into the 
grain-field and eats a large quantity of ripening or ripe grain. The greatest benefit 
he confers is in the destruction of innumerable noxious insects, May-beetles, ])ea-grubs, 
caterpillars, and grassho))pers, to feed his young." 

The sparrow is from this not so injurious as he was declared to be in former times, 
and upon the whole is certainly more beneficial than harmful. I know towns where 
sparrows were killed as injurious, but the fruit-trees there never had fruit, though 
other towns in the neighborhood had plenty of it. The cause was that the caterpil- 
lars were not killed by the sparrows. Tlr.ough loss came wisdom ; the sparrows were 
again introduced, and it was found more ])rofitable to protect the fruit-trees and vines 
against their depredation by simple artificial means. 



DR. n. A. HAGEN ON THE ENGLISH SPARROW. 151 

Dr. C. W. L. Gloger, in 1H58, tays: " The formerly much-abused sparrow is ofien an 
impudent fellow, but he eats insects as long as they are to be found. With some pre- 
dilection he collects leaf-lice from the buds of shrubs and trees and feeds his young 
with caterpillars. Certainly the sparrows merits well the few cherries and grapes 
which he steals, as he protects so many other fruits which he leaves untouched. In 
former times people were short-sighted enough to hunt and kill the sparrow ; now 
opinion has changed. All intelligent horticulturists especially will never persecute 
the sparrow." 

Among the large numl)er of books on horticulture, there is not one which even ex- 
cuses much less commends its destruction. If the sparrows were injurious they would 
be much more so for horticulturists than for farmers. The stomach of the sparrow 
in fall or winter is rounded with seeds of weeds, which i^ certaiuly more than an 
equivalent for the grain stolen in summer. 

These oi)iuions are based upon observations made through a century and supported 
by authors of acknowledged reputation, while the decisions of the "Nuttall Club'' are 
given only after the observations of a few years. I would only object to a few obser- 
vations given in the report, the rest being suificiently answered by the above extracts. 

The report states "the sparrows to be carnivorous birds, eagerly destroying and 
devouring eggs and newly-hatched young of other birds." It is well known to every 
naturalist what science understands by the term " carnivorous birds," and it is well 
known that sparrows do not belong to them. This term as applied to the sparrow is 
decidedly out of place in the report of an ornithological club. The other part of the 
quotation reminds me of a quibble a century old. It was said that "the sparrow in- 
vades the nests of pigeons, to cut open the crop of the young ones, and to feed upon 
the grain contained in them when he needs it." Of course it was understood that he 
never needed it. The report says further, " the decided preference for fruits and leaf- 
buds [the last observation is an original one with the 'Nuttall Club'] renders them 
decidedly a pest to horticulturists." As this statement, if true, would be alarming for 
horticulturists, I should be very glad if the above quoted contradictory observations 
of Bechstein and Gloger would find a place in some prominent paper or magazine 
devoted to the interests of horticulturists. But I can give them some further con- 
solation. It is, perhaps, not commonly known to what extent the horticulturists 
here find it profitable to depend upon German horticulturists. In 1867, wishing to 
send home a set of flower-seeds, I went to the most prominent dealers, stated my pur- 
pose, and got the following answer: " We import all our seeds from Germany." In 
1874, I was asked by a friend to send the seeds of the American native jjine-tree. After 
going around in Boston without success, I wrote to New York, Philadelphia, and Saint 
Louis, and had from all the same answer. Now, when American dealers find it profit- 
able to import seed from Germany, and the German dealers find it jirofitable to export 
them, it is rather obvious that the sj^arrows, so exceedingly common in Germany nur- 
sery-gardens, cannot be a pest there, and conseqiiently will not be a pest here. A 
book commending the persecution of sparrows would at this day be considered by 
intelligent German horticulturists as a curiosity. 

The argument suggested in the report of the "Club," that the help of the sparrows 
is not needed for the suppression of the canker-worm, because various effective devices 
exist for the protection of the fruit and shade trees, decidedly loses its value, when 
summer after summer we have seen those devices applied with care, and in spite of 
these the foliage was destroyed, except where the sparrows were present in sufficient 
number to check it. Prominence has always been given to the alleged fact that the 
sparrows drive off' indigenous birds. According to my personal observation in Cam- 
bridge, and other suburbs of Boston, this is not true. When I arrived here in 1SG7, I 
was surprised by the scarcity of birds in such a large number of beautiful gardens and 
splendid grounds. The following spring I was able to understand why birds were so rare 
here, as I saw and heard morning and afternoon around and very near to the museum, 
and elsewhere, the shooting of every kind of bird. I saw boys plundering the nests of 



152 REPORT UPON COTTON INSECTS. 

the most valuable insect-eaters, robins not excepted, aud I also saw target-sliootiug iu 
the oy)eu field : the target fastened to large trees upon which were birds' nests. Dur- 
ing recent years the protection of sparrows has surely saved the native birds, and I 
have never seen in Cambridge more native birds, and never heard more beautiful song- 
birds, than in the summer of 1877. 

Concerning the diminished number of native birds iu the Smithsonian grounds in 
Washington, I am assured that one of the foremost Ameiican ornithologists denies it 
to be the fact. After all, it should not be forgotten that by the rapid increase of the 
cities (Cambridge has now more than twice as many inhabitants as it had in 18()7), 
and with the incessant disappearance of trees and shrubs, some kinds of birds may 
prefer to go to more secluded places. 

The argument that sparrows drive other birds out of the bird-boxes is rather a 
funny one, when it will be remembered that all those bird-boxes were placed only for 
the sparrow. I think every bird will fight for its home ; nevertheless I observed, in 
1877, sparrows driven out of the box which they had used the year befoi'e by swal- 
lows, which raised their young safely among a dozen of boxes near by used by spar- 
rows. In a box in the garden at the corner of Broadway and Harvard streets, a pair 
of swallows and a pair of sparrows settled last year together. The box had only one 
entrance through which both had to pass, aud as there were two glass windows in the 
box, both nests could be observed, aud the young of both were safely raised. If, as it 
seems to be the case, that native birds prefer now to breed in bird-boxes, which they did 
not and could not do here in former years, it would be simply reasonable to place more 
boxes everywhere, aud, as is done in Europe, different sizes for different kinds of birds. 

Nobody has ever coutended that the sparrow is a beauty or a charming singer. In- 
deed he is only an indefatigable business man, minding first his own affairs, as is not 
uncommon among business men. But he is admirably adapted for his business, which, 
is to destroy insects ; he is very enduring, staying through the winter, when few 
other insect-eating birds are here ; he begins to breed much earlier and breeds much 
oftener than other birds, and is, therefore, more able to give an effective help in the 
destruction of insects and weeds. But it is true that he should be supported, as Mr. 
Allen remarks judiciously iu thL> report, through enforcing, by statutoiy enactments, 
the protection of the fruit and shade trees by all available menus. 

As no naturalist would pretend that a bird, by importation into a foreign but simi- 
lar clim:ili\ could entirely change its character in a few years, the sjiarrow question 
will pi-obably here go through the same, though briefer, stages of opinion as iu Europe. 
I consider 1 he sparrow to be a most valuable addition to the native birds, aud most 
certainly beneficial to both horticulturists aud farmers. 

Aud now, to return ouce more to the other side of the question, we 
will quote an article by Dr. Elliott Cones, one of our greatest ornitholo- 
gists, published iu the American JJaturalist, August, 1878: 

"It is very regretablo that the ' sparrow question,' which has already become a 
matter of national moment, should have degenerated into such a miserable personal 
controversy between the sentimentalists who misrepresent the facts, and the ornitholo- 
gists who understand them, that a prudent person, whatever his views, might refrain 
from having anything to do with it. But it is with me a matter of conscientious 
discharge of my duty to place the facts properly before the people, that they may be 
informed aud warned in time, before the pest shall have become ineradicable. I do 
not write for ornithologists ; for, so far as I am aware, there is not a scientific 
ornithologist in America, among those who have expressed any decided opinion, who 
are iu favor of the wretched interlopers which we have so thoughtlessly introduced, 
and played with, and cuddled, like a parcel of hysterical, slate-pencil-eating school- 
girls. I have held a tight rein on this controversy from the first, aud i^robably know 
more of its inside history than auy other person; and I am in a position to affirm that 
the sneers, the invectives, the ridicule and abuse, and the wild assertions of the leader 



DR. ELLIOTT COUES ON THE ENGLISH SRAREOW. 153 

or leaders of the pro-sparrow faction, result from a frantic despair in the face of the 
facts which ornithologists coolly adduce. The fact that the sparrow is a nuisance in a 
variety of ways, that it docs not do any appreciable good, that it docs a very obvious 
amount of damage, that it harasses, drives otf, and sometimes destroys useful native 
birds, and that it has no place in the natural economy of this country, are patent to 
every one who will take the trouble to see for himself. These same facts, some or all, 
are disagreeably obvious to many persons, especially agriculturists whose fields and 
gardens are assailed. All of these same facts are admitted by competent ornithologists 
generally. None of them are publicly disputed, so far as I know, by any person or 
persons whose authority has any weight in a question of this kind. 

•' The friends of the sparrows in this country fall in the following categories : First, 
those who know nothing and care nothing particularly about them except that they 
rather like the pert and brusque familiarity of the birds — a class composed chiefly of 
children, women, and old fogies. Secondly, those who are or were instrumental in 
getting the birds here, and who are interested, either in reputation or in pocket, to 
keep them here. Thirdly, quasi-ornithologists who have been misled into hasty ex- 
pressions of ojiinion to which they feel bound to stick. Fourthly, the daqueis of the 
last, who play a sort of * Simon says up ' game. Fifthly, a very few intelligent and 
scientitic persons, but not practical nor professional ornithologists, who recognize fully 
what little good the sparrow undeniably does, and shape a favorable argument mainly 
from the undisputed advantages which result from a just and proper number of 
the sparrows in Europe. 

"Most of my antagonists in this matter — those that fall in the first four categories 
above named — are of course not worth serious attention, for they either have no 
decided opinions of any sort., or else they are not open to instruction. But I have a 
particular word to say to those who draw an honest argument, not without some show 
of reason, from the state of thiiif/s in Europe. I grant, if they wish, everything they 
adduce, from Pr6vost (who by the way is a great tallyho! for the members of the third 
category above) to the last investigator of the contents of sparrows' crops ; and I simply 
reply that the argument does not apply to the case of the sparrow in America. In Europe 
these birds are part and parcel of the natural fauna of the country. Thej- are not, as 
I understand, petted, i)ampered, and sedulously protected from their natural enemies 
as they are here. They shift for themselves, find certain sources of food supply, have 
a fair share of natural enemies, and are kept within due bounds of multiplication by 
natural causes; so that the "balance of power," to use a political phrase, adjusts 
itself. In short, they have their useful part to play and they play it ; they have their 
natural checks, and their increase is naturally checked. They are useful birds ; and 
"VYjhen, after somewhat excessive multiplication, from any cause, they have been inju- 
diciously exterminated in certain districts, it has been found necessary to restore such 
districts at great trouble and expense. All this, I believe, is admitted on all hands. 

"But the principle of mutatis mutandis does not apply to the sparrow in America. 
The things that would have to be changed to make the sparrows fit here cannot be 
changed. The comi)lement of onr air fauna was made up without these birds. There 
is no room for them ; aud if there is any work for them, time has shown that they 
slight it or neglect it altogether. The only way to make the sparrows eat the worms 
they were imported to destroy, and which they seem to specially dislike, would be to 
starve them into such unpalatable fare. Instead of that, we sedulously feed them 
from our tables till they are growji too fat aud lazy to think of worms. And if we did 
not do so, it would be useless to expect them to take to a diet they do nor relish, when 
the streets are full of manure, of which they are especially fond, and the trees of our 
orchards are full of fruit blossoms, and the gardens are full of suiall fruit, and the fields 
are waving with grain, all these things being the natural food of birds of the sparrow 
tribe, to whom an insectivorous diet is only an occasional aud temporary variation. 

"Again, the matter of the limitless multiplication of these pestilent famine-breeders 
presents itself very diftereutly in this country. A single female has been known to lay 
over thirty eggs in a season. They ordinarily raise three or four broods a year, and 



154 REPORT UPON COTTON INSECTS. 

may have half a dozen at a time. They are safely housed from their natural enemies; 
rather, they have no special enemies in this country, and snch enemies as their exces- 
sive abundance might raise up against them have, in at least one case, been summarily 
disposed of, as in the silly action of the Bostonian regarding the shrikes. There is 
thus practically no check upon their limitless multiplication, and they are insidiously 
multiplying at a rate that perhaps few suspect. A short ten years ago a sparrow was 
something of a sight anywhere ; now the millions we have are countless. The spar- 
rows have played mischief enough already, I know, but I say deliberately that this 
is nothing to what the next decade or two will witness if this desperate sparrow-mania 
goes on. We may have before long people knocking at the Congressional gates for an 
appropriation for a sparrow commission, like the Grasshopper Commission now sitting, 
to consider if there be any available relief from the scourge. \Yhen the sparrows over- 
flow into all the country — and they are beginning to do so already — and settle in hordes 
on the grain-tields, a good many will doubtless be destroyed by the birds and beasts 
of prey, but it may then be too late. At present, an occasional stone from some idle 
boy, or an occasional cat on the woodshed, are all the sparrow has to look out for. 

" I think it will be evident that the ar(iumtntum ad Enropeam cannot logically apply 
here. I have dwelt upon it becaiise it is the only show of reason I iind in my worthier 
opponents ; yet it is fallacious, thoroughly fallacious. The crude observations of the 
less worthy, the misrepresentations and tergiversations of interested persons, and all 
vociferations of the pyrgitomaniacs are wasted in a case like this, or are not wasted 
only in so far as they serve to dress up a melodramatic spectacle, at seeing which well- 
informed persons usually smile. The philopasserites may be remiuded that sentiment 
is not science, the present being a question of apiplied or economic science ; that satire, 
ridicule, aud sophistry, however potent in the political or theological arena, are im- 
potent in the field of science. 

" For the common good as well as for the benelit of those who may care to defend 
the sparrows, I make the following specilications of my general charge against these 
birds. 

" 1. They neglect entirely, or perform very insufficiently, the business they were im- 
ported to do. In spite of some good service at one season of the year in a few par- 
ticular localities against some particular kinds of insects, the state of our shade-trees 
remains substantially as it was before their introduction. Some of the decrease of 
noxious insects at times is due to their periodical decrease, with which the sparrows 
have nothing to do; and m spite of assertions to the contrary, i)eoiilear(' si ill scraping 
trees and still employing the usual defenses against insects in precisely those jdaces 
where it was said that the sparrows had done the business. 

"2. They attack, harass, tight against, dispossess, drive away, and sometimes act- 
ually kill various of our native birds which are much more insectivorous by nature 
than themselves, and Avhich might do us better service if tht^y were equally encouraged. 
This fact is suppressed, explained away, or flatly denied, according to the disingen- 
uousness, the aptitude for quibbling, or the audacity of the third and fourth catego- 
ries of persons above described. It is attested, however, by numberless competent and 
veracious eye-witnesses. 

" 3. They commit great depredations in the kitchen-garden, the orchard, and the 
grain-field. We are only as yet on the very threshold of this matter, yet how obvious 
it is. And what may be expected, when, instead of a few hundred million sjjarrows^ 
we have the millions of millions which will be ours in a few years if we ])ersist in 
this folly. 

"4. They are personally obnoxious and unpleasant to many persons. For myself, 'I 
rather like them too; they rather amuse and interest me and are not at all disagreeable, 
as long as I can keep their disastrous results out of mind. I am not a delicate woman 
nor yet a sqeamishman, to be shocked by their perpetual antics during the spring and 
summer; being something of an anatomist, I can stand it without embarrassment, but 
all are not so constituted. Neither am I a nervous invalid, to be fretted and annoyed 



OPINION OF DR. ELLIOTT COUES. 155- 

into positive illness by the incessant tnrmoil at the window ; bnt others are. Nor do 
I, I regret to say, own a house where the steps and window-sill and trellis-work and 
lawn are so befilthed that none of my servants will stay if they have to clean up after 
the birds; others, however, are in such case. I grant that this is all a matter of taste 
rather than of science, but such as it is, it is largely against the sjjarrow. 

"5. They have, at present, practically no natural enemies nor any check what- 
ever upon limitless increase. This would be undesirable, even in the case of the 
most desirable birds ; as the case stands, tee are repeating the history of the white weed and 
the Xorwajj rat.* 

"I have to make one suggestion and to offer two recommendations. 

"It is a fact, that with all this talk and countertalk about the food of the s]>arrow,. 
and to what extent it may ft^ed ui^on insects injurious to our fruit and shade trees, 
nobody has yet made the experiments obviously necessary to determine exactly what 
the birds eat in the country. I would, therefore, suggest the obvious propriety of 
finding out exactly, in the only proper and scientific way, instead of sawingthe air any 
longer in such a futile way. I suggest that, at the height of the insect season, at the 
time when the sparrows should be eating the bugs, if they ever do, in some places 
fairly infested with bugs, a sufiicient number of sparrows be killed and examined in 
respect to the contents of their crops. Let the authorities of any of our large cities — 
preferably Boston, where the birds are said to have done so much good, and where the 
sparrow combination talks loudest — furnish to proper persons, say, five hundred sp£Jr- 
rows, whose stomachs shall be examined by some competent botanist and entomologist 
together. If noxious insects should be found to form the greatest portion, or even any 
considerable portion, of the food of these birds, I would yield the case so far as this- 
particular count is concerned. At present I continue to believe that the scraping and 
other occupation of the city foresteriug Othellos is not gone. 

•'As to my recommendation, I am often asked, 'Would you then have sparrows ex- 
terminated ? ' While I am not prepared to advise such an extreme measure as this, 
I do not hesitate to declare that prompt and stringent measures should be taken, as a 
matter of national economy, to check the increase of the birds. We have enough already. 
Without unnecessary cruelty the numbers might be kept down, if not diminished, by 
the following gradually and continually operating means: 

"I. Let the birds shift for themselves. — Turn them loose, and put them on the same 
footing as othor birds — that is, take down the boxes and all the special contrivancea- 
for sheltering and petting the birds ; stop feeding them; stop supplying them with, 
building materials; let them take care of themselves. 

"II. Abolish the legal penuliies for killing them. — The birds are now under the arm of 
the laAV, which protects them from most of the natural vicissitudes of bird life. Let 
the boys kill them if they wish, or let them be trapped and used as pigeons or glass- 
balls are now used in shooting-matches among sportsmen. Vast numbers of pigeons 
are destroyed in this way; there are even 'sparrow clubs ' in various cities, which, 
make a business of practicing on various of our small birds, for which the European 
sparrow would be an admirable substitute, answering all the conditions these marks- 
men could desire. In this way the birds might even be made a source of some little 
revenue, instead of a burden and a pest ; they are to be had in practically unlimited 
numbers, and could be sold by the city to such persons as might desire to use them for 
sporting purposes. 

"The present article is to be regarded as a mere outline of the important subject. 
I have collected a voluminous mass of testimony during the past two or three years, 
which I intend to digest, in order to bring the whole matter in its true light on per- 
mant^nt record, in treating of the species in the 'Birds of the Colorado Valley,' for the 
plague has spread even to that remote portion of our much-besparrowed country." 

" * A writer in the London Garden says: "It may be remembered that in one of the 
back numbers of the ' Garden^ I mentioned that the introduction of the sparrows would 
turn out to be a great mistake, and they are now finding this out." 



156 REPORT UPON COTTON INSECTS. 

The firmest upliolder of the sparrows, aud the man who has written 
most in their defense, is Dr. Thomas M. Brewer, of Boston. Owing to 
the fact that nearly all his wiitings upon this subject are controversial, 
and that in no one of them which we have seen is there a general sum- 
ming up of the pro-sparrow arguments, we have had difficulty in select- 
ing from them one to present to our readers. We have finally hit upon 
his correspondence with Mr. Galvin, city forester of Boston, as in it he 
summarizes his main points, and as he has always considered Mr. Gal- 
vm's evidence as almost conclusive. It is from the Boston Transcript 

for April : 

" Boston, April 23, 1877. 

" Dear Sir : Having taken a deep interest in the introduction into this country of the 
house sparrow of Europe, and, while holding my own convictions, based upon careful ob- 
servations as to the value of this bird, aud as to the truth or the falsehood of the accu- 
batious made against them, I take this liberty to ask you a few questions. I do this 
because I well know that your previous knowledge of the habits of this species, and 
your daily opportunities of a closer study of them than any one else can enjoy since 
their introduction into Boston, give to your evidence an indisputable importauce, and 
that your conclusions far outweigh the crude, hasty opinions of prejudiced i>ersons who 
liave never had the opportunity as yourself, and whose sweeping assertions have no 
reliable data for their basis, but are, therefore, untrustworthy and worthless. You 
Lave, no doubt, seen those oft-repeated accusations, all of which are contrary to my ex- 
perience. Desiring to know whether I am right or wrong in my conclusions, I take 
the liberty of appealing to you, that you may correct me if I am wrong, and confirm 
me wherever I may be right. 

"Was the introduction of the sparrow attended with any marked etiect in Boston 
in the destruction of insects injurious to the foliage of ornamental trees on the Common 
or elsewhere in the city ? 

"Have you any reason to believe that the sparrow is still beneficial to our com- 
munity iu the destruction of injurious insects ? 

"Have you ever known the sparrow to attack any other l)ird or contend with any 
species except in defense of its own nest or box? 

"Have you noticed any decrease iu the number of our native birds that visit our 
■city iu the summer season; aud, if so, of what species; and do you attribute any de- 
crease to known adverse action of the sparrow ? 

" The Daily Advertiser recently asserted, as a positive, indi.si)utable fact, that the 
•sparrow shows a particular animosity against the robin aud the bluebird. If this 
be true, it cannot have escaped your notice. Have you witnessed or have any of your 
men reported to you any instances of such animosity ? 

" In this matter, with all my own warmly-interested sympathy for and in favor of 
the sparrow, I desire a full and candid statement of your convictions, drawn from your 
own observations, whether they are in support of my views or the contrary. 
"Yours, verv sincerely, 

"T. M. BREWER. 

"John Galvix, 

" City Forester." 

"City Hall, Bostou, April 23, 1877. 

"Dear Sir: I am perfectly willing to answer all your questions fiankly aud fully. 
You are right in sujiposing that I am and have been familiar with the habits of the 
sparrow even before their introduction. Since their coming to Boston my duties and 
those of my men have given them constant opportunity to notice what they do. Their 
introduction into Boston was immediately attended with great benefit, almost beyond 
calculation. The trees on the Common were infested with a nasty yellow caterpillar, 
Tvhich destroj-ed the leaves and buds of the elms and other trees, and these insects iu- 



PROF. AUGHEY ON THE SPARROW QUESTION. 157 

creased very rapidly in spite of all my men could do to destroy them. And at the 
south end the elm trees were eateu every June by swarms of canker-worms. Both of 
these pests have been pretty nearly exterminated, and the trees, many of which would 
otherwise have died, have been s.aved. 

"The sparrow is still of great use ; but for it, these insects would return, and other 
pests would attack the trees. Last spring (1876) the buds of many of the larger elms- 
were attacked by a great many of a small kind of lice. The sparrows soon found them 
out and ate them greedily. Consequently, the foliage, instead of drying up, as it would 
have done but for the sparrows, was never finer. My men could do nothing. They 
had no wings like the sparrow, who could cling to the buds and clean them one by 
one. Yet for all this good the sparrow was doing there were some so prejudiced against 
it and who can see no good, but only harm, in anything it does, who raised a hue and 
cry that the sparrows Avere eating the buds! Instead of that they were eating the 
bud-eater; but instead of being thanked for the good they were doing, they were only 
abused. I believe that the wages of all my men would not compensate Boston for the 
loss of the sparrow. 

"In answer to your third question, I say, without hesitation, the sparrow does not 
molest or interfere with any other bird. It does not trouble the robin or bluebird or 
manifest any animosity against either. All summer long they are together, and it 
would be impossible for this to be done without my men or I noticing it, yet I never 
witnessed anything of the kind. 

"I have not noticed any decrease in the number of birds; on the contrary, a very 
marked increase of various kinds. The robins were more numerous on the Common 
last summer than ever before. The little chip-sparrow has become very numerous, and 
seems to be very fond of the sparrow, often feeding on the same bit of bread. The 
small martins have very greatly increased in numbers on account of the number of boxes. 
These they have taken possession of whenever they want one, and drive the sparrow 
away. Before the sparrows came there were no bluebirds at all ; now they are be- 
coming quite common, and often treat the sparrows very badly, taking away their 
boxes and breaking up their nests. The sparrows, of course, show fight, but the blue- 
birds are always too strong for them. The writer in the Advertiser, in my opinion, is 
all wrong. 

"I am all in favor of the sparrows. 1 believe that they do no harm, but a great 
deal of good. Thousands of dollars would not pay the city for their loss, and I would 
be very sorry to see anything done to prejudice people against them or permit their 

destruction. 

"JOHN GALVIN, 

^^ Sujjerintendent. 
"Dr. Thomas M. Brewer." 

Prof. Samuel Aughey, of Lincoln, Nebr., from whom we have already 
quoted, a gentleman who has paid great attention to the subject of 
insectivorous birds, has decided opinions on the sparrow question. The 
following is from his report to the United States Entomological Com- 
mission : 

"Some persons have advocated the introduction of English sparrows in order to- 
mitigate our insect plagues. Such a policy, it appears to me, would be highly objec- 
tionable. The moral qualities, or what is near akin to moral qualities, of the English 
sparrow are bad. Where I have seen this bird in America it has gradually driven oft 
our small native birds. Around Philadelphia, where it has now monopolized the 
ground, I last year renewed its acquaintance. I again revisited some of my old haunta 
where in early life I studied our native birds. I could hardly find a bluebird, a robin, 
or native sparrow where they were abundant in 1858, 1859, 1860, and isei The En- 
glish sparrow, however, greeted me everywhere. It was the opinion of all that I con- 
sulted that it had di'iven off the native birds. Certainly this, to say the least, is 



158 EEPORT UPON COTTON INSECTS. 

unfortunate. Many kinds of birds not only give more variety, but tbey certainly 
•destroy insects of more species than a single one. If we protect onr own native birds, 
and especially if we cultivate groves of timber where they can find shelter, and ban- 
ish hunting-dogs, guns, and traps, in a comparatively few years the balance of nature 
must be so restored that insects will rapidly decrease, and again reach the normal 
number that prevailed at the first settlement of the country. Besides, it is well known 
that the English sparrow has become partially naturalized iu a small section of 
Nebraska. Some years ago, as I have learned from Hon. J. Sterling Morton, the 
English sparrows were introduced into Nebraska City, and have multiplied to a con- 
siderable extent, but the number of species of insects that they feed on, as has been 
anticipated, has been found to be small. This, of course, could have been endured if 
they were not so hostile to other birds, native to the soil, that do much better. 

"Another fact concerning these sparrows, not well known, is that they are only 
partly insectivorous ; they are more granivorous than insectivorous, and in their na- 
tive habitats they are often destroyed because of their destructive raids on wheat and 
other grain seeds. They have, therefore, for less claim on our protection and care 
than our own far more beautiful and more highly insectivorous birds. It is another 
illustration of the fact that sometimes we go abroad for that which we have in greater 
perfection at home."* 

From these representative opinions it will be seen that, to say the very 
least, much doubt exists as to the real character of the English sparrow. 
Under existing? circumstances, therefore, it will pay the Southern planters 
to hesitate long before introducing into their midst what may prove to be a 
>curse, and thus taking a step which they may long regret. My own ad- 
vice is, after careful consideration of the subject, cultivate and protect 
the native birds, and dro]) all thought of the English sparrow for the 
present. Protect the native insectivorous t)irds, by putting a stop to 
their destruction by ignorant individuals and by birds of prey. There 
are two birds in particular which should always be killed on sight. These 
iire the blue-jay and the cow-bird. We quote from Professor Aughey 
•concerning these two bad characters : 

Among the birds most hostile to birds are the blue-jays. They rob the nests of 
other l)irds of their eggs. Wantonly they often kill even the young and throw them 
out of the nest. The increase of jays is, therefore, incompatible with the general in- 
crease of insectivorous and other small birds, especially of those that nest on trees and 
shrubs. It is hard for the naturalist to give up such a dandy among birds, but, as he 
is only a blackleg in fine clothes, the feathered tribes are healthier and safer without 
iis society. 

Perhaps no bird causes such wholesale destruction among birds as the cow-bird. 
Its habit of laying its eggs in the nests of other birds, one only in a nest, and leaving 
them to be hatched out and nourished by the foster parents, to {he destruction of their 
own kind, merits banishment and death. Even crows and magpies do much less 
harm to other birds than jays and cow-birds. 

In addition to doing away with these active enemies of the insect- 
ivorous birds, the latter should be encouraged in every possible way to 
aiest around plantations. For the martins, native sparrows, and others 
that will make use of artificial nesting places, boxes should be provided, 
if possible. Children should be taught to protect, not to destroy them, 

* Any person desiring to study the subject further will find a complete bibliography 
of the sparrow controversy in the Bulletin of the Hayden Geological and Geographical 
Survey of the Territories, vol. v. No. 2, compiled by Dr. Elliott Coues. 



LIST OF SOUTHERN BIRDS. 159 

and a general sentiment in favor of birds should be established. Not only 
would the cotton-worm suffer, but a good step will have been taken 
towards releasing the planter from the tyranny of his other numerous 
insect enemies. 

Among reptiles, several varieties of lizzards have been reported by 
correspondents as eating cotton-worms, but none have mentioned names 
or forwarded specimens, so we shall have to do without specific names. 
Land turtles are also reported to be fond of the worms, and, as might 
naturally be expected, the common toad is said to feast upon them. 

The following is a list of the insectivorous birds occurring in the cot- 
ton belt. Those nesiing in the Southern States, and which consequently 
are to be relied upon in time of need, are marked with an asterisk. 

For this list the department is indebted to Mr. Eobert Eidgeway, 
ornithologist to the Smithsonian Institution : 

*Nauclertts furcatus, Vigors. SicaUoic -tailed Raich. Feeds ex- 
tensively upon grasshoppers. 

* ICTiNiA ]\rississiPPiENSis, Gray. Misdssippi Kite. Feeds exten- 
sively upon grasshoppers. 

* CocCYGUS AMERICANUS, Bonap. YeUow-hilUd Cuckoo^ or Bain Crow. 
*CoccYGUs ERYTHROPHTHALMUS, Bouap. Blach-hUled GucTioo. 

* Campephilus principalis. Gray. Ivory-Billed Woodpecker. 
*Picus viLLOSUS, Linn. Hairy Woodpecker. 

*Picus scALARis, Wagler. Texas Sapsiicker. 

* Picus BOREALis, Vieill. Bed Cockaded Wood])ecker. 

* Hylotomus pileatus, Baird. Black Woodpecl-er. 

* Centurus carolinus, Bonap. Bed-bellied Woodpecker. 
*Melanerpes erythrocephalus, Sw. Bed-Headed Woodpecker. 

* CoLAPTES AURATUS, Swalnsoii. Yelloic- shafted Flicker. 
*Ohaetura pelasgia, Steph. Chimney Sicalloic. 
*Antrostomus carolinensis, Gould. Chuck-ivilPs-widow. 
*Antrostomus vociFERUS, Bouap. Wkip-poor-iciU. 

* Chordeiles popetue, Baird. ]:^ight Haick. 

* MiLVULUS FORFiCATUS, Sw. Scissor-tail. Not found east of Louisi- 
ana. 

* Tyrannus carolinensis, Baird. King Bird ; Bee Bird. Destruc- 
tive to bees. 

* Tyrannus dominicensis, Eich. Gray King Bird. 

* Myiarchus crinitus. Cab. Great Crested Flycatcher. 

* Sayornis fuscus, Baird. Pewee. 

* CoNTOPUS viRENS, Cab. Wood Pewee. 

* Empidonax acadicus, Baird. Green-crested Flycatcher. 

* TuRDUS MUSTELINUS, Gm. Wood Thrush. 
TuRDUS PALLASi, Cab. Hermit Thrush. 
TuRDUS FUSCESCENS, Stephens. Wilsonh Thrush. 
TuRDUS swAiNSONii, Cab. Olive-hacked Thrush. 
TuRDUS Ai.iciAE, Baird. Gray-cheeked Thrush. 



160 REPORT UPON COTTON INSECTS. 

* TuRDUS 3IIGRATORIITS, Liuu. Itohin. Destructive to certain small 
fruits. 

* SiALiA SIALIS, Baird. Blue Bird. 

Regulus calendula, Liclit. Euhy-crou-ncd Wren. 
Regulus satrapa, Licbt. Golden-crested Wren. 
Anthus LUDOViciANUS, Licht. Tit-lark. 

* Mniotilta varia, Vieill. Black and white Creeper. 
*Parula A3IERICANA, Bouap. Blue Yelloic-hack. 
*Protonotaria citrea, Baird. Protkonotary Warbler, 
*Geothlypis trichas, Cab. Jlaryland Yelloiv-tliroat. 
Geothlypis PHILADELPHIA, Baird. Mourning Warhler. 
Oporornis agilis, Baird. Connecticut Warbler. 

* Oporornis formosus, Baird. Kentucky Warbler. 

* IcTERiA YiRiDis, Boiiap. Yclloic-breasted Chat. 
*Helmitherus vekmivorus, Boiiap. Worm-eating Warbler. 

* Helmitherus swainsonii, Bouap. Swainson^s Warbler. 

* Helminthophaga pinus, Baird. Blue-icinged Yelloiv Warbler. 
Hel:minthophaga chrysoptera, Baird. Golden-winged Warbler. 
*Hel:minthophaga bachmani, Cab. Backnuni's Warbler. 
Helminthophaga ruficapilla, Baird. Nashville Warbler. 
Helminthophaga celata, Baird. Orange-crowned Warbler. 
Hel>iintiiopiia(^a peregrina. Cab. Tennessee Warbler. 
*Seiurus aurocapillus, Sw. Golden-crowned Thrush. 
Seiurus noveboracensis, Xutt. Wafer Thrnsh. 

* Seiurus ludovicianus, Bouap. Large-billed Water Thrush. 
Dendroica virens, Baird. Black-throated Green Warbler. 
Dendroica canadensis, Baird. Black-throated Blue Warbler. 
Dendroica coronata, Gray. Yellow-rump Warbler. 
Dendroica blackburniae, Baird. Blackbumian Warbler. 
Dendroica castanea, Baird. Bay-breasted Warbler. 

* Dendroica pinus, Baird. Fine-creeping Warbler. 
Dendroica pennsylvanica, Baird. Chestnut-sided Warbler. 

* Dendroica caerulea, Baird. Blue Warbler. 
Dendroica striata, Baird. Black Poll Warbler. 

* Dendroica aestiva, Baird. Yellow Warbler. 
Dendroica maculosa, Baird. Black and Yelloiv Warbler. 
Dendroica kirtlandii, Baird. Kirtlandh Warbler. 
Dendroica tigrina, Baird. Cape May Warbler. 
Dendroica carbonata, Baird. Carbonated Warbler. 
Dendroica i'AL3IARum, Baird. Yellow Bed Poll. 

* Dendroica superciliosa, Baird. Yellow-throated Warbler. 

* Dendroica discolor, Baird. Prairie Warbler. 

* Myiodioctes mitratus, Aud. Hooded Warbler. 
Myiodioctes minutus, Baird. Small-headed Flycatcher. 
Myiodioctes pusillus, Bouap. Green Black-cap Flycatcher. 
Myiodioctes canadensis, Aud. Canada Flycatcher. 



LIST OF SOUTHERN BIRDS. 161 

* SETorHAGA uiTTiciLLA, Sw. Redstart. 

* Pyranga rubra, Vieill. Scarlet Tanager. 

* Ptranga Aestiva, Vieill. Summer Bed Bird. 

* HiRUNDO HORREORUM, Barton. Barn Swallow. 

* HiRUNDO LUNiFRONS, Say. Cliff Swallow. 

* HiRUNDO BicoLOR, Vieill. WJiite-hellied Swallow. 

* COTYLE RIP ARIA, Boie. BttiiJc Swalloiv. 

* CoTYLE SERRiPENNis, Boiiap. Bough-winged Swallow. 

* Progne purpurea, Boie. Burple Martin. 

* Ampelis cedrorum, Baird. Cedar Bird. Feeds also on cherries, &c. 

* CoLLYRio LUDOViciANUS, Baird. LoggerJiead ShriJce. 

* Vireo olivaceus, Vieill. Bed-eyed Flycatcher. 
Vtero philadelphicus, Cassiu. BMladelpMa Vireo. 

* ViERO GiLVUS, Bonap. Warbling Flycatcher. 

* Vireo noveboracensis, Bonap. White-eyed Vireo. 

* Vireo solitarius, Vieill. Blue-headed Flycatcher. 

* Vireo plavifrons, Vieill. Yellow-throated Flycatcher. 

* MiMUS POLYGLOTTUS, Boie. Mocldng Bird. Feeds also upon ber- 
ries and other small fruit. 

*MiMUS CAROLiNENSis, Gray. Cat Bird. Feeds also upon berries 
and other small fruit. 

* Harporhynchus rufus, Cab. Brown Thrush. 
*Thryothorus LUDOViciANUS, Bonap. Great Carolina Wren. 
*Thryothorus bewickii, Bonap. Bewicks Wren. 

* CiSTOTHORUS palustris, Cab. Long-hilled Marsh Wren. 

* CiSTOTHORUS STELLARis, Cab. Short-Mlled Marsh Wren. 

* Troglodytes AEDON, Vieill. House Wren. 
Troglodytes hyemalis, Vieill. Winter Wren. 
Certhia AMERICANA, Bouap. American Creeper. 
SiTTA CAROLiNENSis, Gmeliu, White-Bellied Nuthatch. 
SiTTA CANADENSIS, Liuu. Bed-Bellied Nuthatch. 
SiTTA PUSILLA, Latham. Brown-headed Nuthatch. 
POLIOPTILA CAERULEA, Sclat. Bluc-gray Gnatcatcher. 
LoPHOPHANES BICOLOR, Bonap. Tufted Titmouse. 
Parus CAROLINENSIS, Aud. Carolina Titmouse. 

t * Chrysomitris tristis, Bonap. Yelloio Bird. 

* Coturniculus passerinus, Bonap. Yelloic-winged Sparrow. 

* Coturniculus henslowi, Bonap. Senslowh Bunting. 

* AiMMODROMUS CAUDACUTUS, Sw. Sharp-tailed Fincli. 

* A]MiMODR0]vius mJlRITIMUS, Sw. Sea-sidc Finch. 

* Spizella PUSILLA, Bouap. Field Sparrow. 

* Spizella socialis, Bonap. Chippiiig Sparrow. 

tThe sparrow tribe {FringilUdue) {ire chiefly grauivorous, but prey upon insects to 
a greater or less extent during tlie breeding season. Only those breeding in the cotton 
States are included in this list. — E. E. 
11 C I 



162 EEPORT UPON COTTON INSECTS. 

* Melospiza IMELODIA, Baircl. Song Sparroic. 

* Peucaea aestivalis, Cab. Baclimaii's Finch. 

* EusPizA A3IERICANA, Boiiap. Blacl' -throated Bunting. 
*GurBACA CAERULEA, S'O'. Blue Grosheal: 

* Cyanospiza cieis, Baird. Fainted Bunting. 

* Cyanospiza cyanea, Baird. Indigo Bird. 

* SPERMOPniLA MORELETii, Pucheran. LittJe Seedeater. 

* Pyerhuloxia sinuata, Bonap. Texas Cardinal. 

* Cardinalis virginianus, Bouap. Fed Bird. 

* PiPiLO ERYTHROPHTHALMUS, Yieill. Ground Fohin ; Towhee. 

* Agelaius PHOENICEUS. Vieill. Fed-icinged Blaclcbird. 

* Sturnella magna, Sw. Meadoio LarJc. 

* Icterus spurius, Bonap. Orchard Oriole. Extremely beneficial. 

* Icterus BALTDiORE, Daudin. Baltimore Oriole. Extremely bene- 
ficial. 

*QuisCALUS MACROURA, Sw. Jjong-tailed Gralde. 
*QuisCALUS MAJOR, Yieill. Boat-tailed Grakle. 

* QuisCALUS VERSICOLOR, Vicill. Croic Blaclhird. 

* QuiscALUS BARITUS, Vicill. Florida BlaclMrd. 

*CoRVUS AiMERiCANUS, Aud. Common Groic. Great difference of 
opinion as to whether destructive or not, bat unquestionably chietij'" 
insectiverous. 

* var. CoRVUS floridanus, Baird. Florida Crow. 
*CoRVUS ossiFRAGUS, Wilson. Fish Crow. 

* Cyanura cristata, Sw. Blue Jay. Omnivorous and scarcely ben- 
eficial. 

* Cyanocitta florid ana, Bonap. Florida Jag. 

* Ortyx viRGiNiANUS, Bonap. Partridge ; Quail. Very beneficial ; 
few birds, if any, more so. 

INVERTEBRATE ENEMIES. 

The invertebrate enemies of the cotton-worm are, with the exception 
of the spiders, all true insects. These enemies may be divided, for the 
sake of convenience, into those predaceous and i\xo&Q ;parasitic upon the 
cotton- worm in one or another of its stages.* 

PREDACEOUS. 

Spiders {Araneida). — That the numerous spiders, always to be found 
about cotton fields, do a considerable amount of good in capturing the 
cotton-worms and the cotton-moths cannot be doubted. The jumping 

* The use of these two words in contradistinction the one to the other is to he dep- 
recated, Tinder ordinary circumstances, from the fact that they are not sufficiently 
definitely limited in their meaning, and that there are many insects which it would 
be difficult to designate by the one word or the other. In the present case, however, no 
such difficulty occurs, and we adopt the texvas j^redaceous and jparasific as afibrding the 
most convenient division of this head. 



SPIDERS VS. COTTON-WORMS. 



163 




Fig. 6.— At- 
tus nubilus. 



spiders (Attldes) destroy many young larvae and occasionally are able to 
capture a moth. 

Mr. Trelease says:* "One day in July I saw a small jumping-spider 
leap upon a half grown larva, which it killed and sucked the juices from." 
This spider proved to be a specimen of Attus nubilus and 
was only a trifle over one-sixth of an inch in length (4™"). 
As a characteristic jumping spider we figure it. (See Fig. 6.) 
In color the thorax is dark brown and the abdomen is very 
light with markings of brown. These jumpers never lose a 
chance to catch a moth when they are able, as is evinced 
by the following extract, also from Mr. Trelease's report : 

About twiliglit of August 27, while watching numbers of moths en- 
gaged in eating rotting peaches on the ground, I heard a rather loud 
rustling among them, and several took flight from the point where the 
noise was heard. Going to the spot I found that a large ground-spider had captured 
one of the moths, which was beating its wings in futile eiforts to escape. Owing to 
the darkness, the spider was allowed to escape, so that I did not determine the species. 

The large nesting spiders {JEpeirides), of which the commonest species 
through the Southern cotton-fields is Argiope riparia {JEpeira riparia of 
older authors), catch the moths in their webs. 

A common and doubtless a beneficial species which I observed upon 
the cotton-plant in Alabama is 
a large pale-green spider, with 
long spiny legs {Oxyopes viri- 
dans). (See Fig. 7.) 

CluMona pallens was found 
nesting in cotton quite abund- 
antly. They fold the cotton 
leaves in much the same manner 
as do the cotton- worms, forming 
thereby a sort of basket, in which 
they deposit their eggs. They 
may at once be distinguished 
from the AZe^ia webby the white- 
ness of the silk of the former. 

Among the smaller species which have been noticed upon the plant 
among the young worms may be mentioned Attus fasciatus, Theridinm 
glohosum, Theridium funebre, Epeira stellata, Sinyphia communis^ Tetlira- 
guata extensa, MetJia sp., and Xysticus spA 

Of the true insects that prey upon the eggs, larvae,^ or adult oi Aletia 
argillacea, some 35 species have been observed by the correspondents 
and observers of the department. Of these we shall speak in their 
regular scientific order, beginning with those belonging to the a!^EtJEOP- 
TERA, the lowest order of insects. 




Fig. 7. — Oxyoi)es viridaus. 



'Appendix I, report of William Trelease. 

tThe determinations of the spiders mentioned in this report were made by Mr. 
George Marx, of this department. 



1G4 



KEPORT UPON COTTON INSECTS. 





Aphis lions (Xeur., gen. Clirysopa). The aphis lions are the hirvaeof 
tiic " golden-eyetl lace-wing flies" — insects with slender bodies and ex- 
tremely delicate, ganze-like wings. 
Their color is usnallj" green and 
their eyes golden (represented in all 
stages by Figures S and 9). Upon 
being disturbed, they emit a disa- 
greeable, fetid odor. Their eggs are 
Fig. 8.-Clirysopa perla. ^j^^^g r^^^ ^^^ supported by long 

foot-stalks, as shown in the figure, usually upon plants infested with 
plant-lice. The larvae are active and extremely voracious. There are 

two or more broods in the course of the 
summer, and the last brood winters in 
the chrysalis state, protected by a com- 
FiG. 9.— Chrysopa oculata. pact, rouud, whitish COCOOn. 

These aphis lions are abundant upon the cotton plant throughout the 
summer, and in the early i)art of the season do the i)lanters much good 
by destroying the cotton-aphides in large numbers. Later in the sea- 
son, we have the authority of Dr. Phares for stating that they devour 
the eggs and ucAvly-hatched larvae of the cotton-moth. Mr. Trelease 
makes the following mention of these insects: 

The larvae (aphis-lions) of the lace-winged flies are also very plentiful on cotton, 
where they prey upon Aphides, and very likely they may also destroy eggs oi Aletia. 

In his notes he says : 

Late in July numerous individuals of the larvae of lace-winged flies, or aphis-lions 
have been found with their jaws over the glands on the under surface of the cotton 
leaves, where they were probably feeding on nectar through their hollow mandibles, 
though they may have been lying in wait for some insect. 

Mr. Trelease also states that it is an idea prevalent among many 
planters that these lace-winged flies are always to be found where there 
are larvae of Aletia. 

Mosquito -HAWKS, Dragon-Flies, or Devil's Darning-needles 
{Neur., Fam. Lihellulidae). — These insects, in the adult stage, are so well 
known as not to warrant description. The eggs are laid in the water, either 
indiscriminately dropped or deposited around the stem of some aquatic 
plant. The larvae are predacious, living upon other aquatic insects, and 
are remarkable for two things : 1, the syringe-like apparatus into which 
the posterior part of the alimentary canal is transformed, and bj' vio- 
lently ejecting a stream from which the insect is propelled through the 
water; and, 2, the arrangement of the jaws at the tip of a long spoon- 
shaped projection of the lower lip, which can be folded under the head 
out of sight while the insect api)roaches its unsuspecting prey. The 
habits of the perfect insects are also predaceous. (We figure one of the 
most common species, Libellula trimaculata.) They catch and eat num- 
bers of insects ujjon the wing. 



REAR-HORSES VS. COTTON-WORMS. 



165 




Fig. 10. — Libellula trimaculata. 



As to their good offices iu destroying cotton-motbs, we quote from Mr. 
F. M. Meekiu, of Morrison's Mills, Alachua Couuty, Florida: 

There is au insect commouly 
called the mosquito-hawk (I 
do uot know its techuical 
name). It is long-bodied, has 
two sets of membranous 
wings, a large head, and a 
long continuation of the ab- 
dominal portion of the bodj'. 
There are many sizes and 
colors. They live on insects 
and on each other, and I have 
frequently seen them catch 
the moth of the cotton-cater- 
pillar. This mosquito-hawk 
is very numerous here, of 
many varieties, varying in 
size from an inch to two and a half or three inches in length of body. I think it does 
more to prevent the development of the cotton-caterpillar than all the rest of its 
enemies. 

Mr. Meekin probably claims too much for these insects. Still, in view of 
his statements and of the well-known habits of dragon -flies, there can be 
little doubt but that they can be considered as active enemies of the 
cotton-moth. 

In the next order, Orthoptera, we find but one insect which preys 
ni^on Aletia argillacea; although in parts of Texas, according to Mr. 
Schwarz, the planters insist that the grasshoppers eat the cotton- worm ! 

The Eear-horse, Camel-cricket, or Devil's Eiding-horse {Man- 
tis Carolina). As useful an insect as occurs in the Southern States 
is known by the above popular names iu different localities. Its food 
consists entirely of other insects, which it approaches stealthily and 
seizes with its powerful spined forelegs. The amount of good which it 
does in thus destroying noxious insects is hard to estimate. The capacity 
of each individual can be seen from the fact that in one night a single 
female has been known to kill and devour eleven Colorado potato beetles, 




Fig. 11. — Eggs of Mantis Carolina. 

leaving only the wing-cases and parts of the legs.* The only objection 
to them seems to be that they are not sufficiently discriminating in 
choosing their prey, and beneficial as well as noxious insects sufl'er from 
their attacks. They seem to be especially fond of one another, and after 
sexual union the female frequently devours the male.t 

*See First Missouri Entomological Report, p. 169 (1869). 
tSee Packard's Guide to the Stiuly of Insects, p. 575. 



166 REPORT UPON COTTON INSECTS. 

The mantis winters in tlie egg state and its peculiar egg masses (see 
Fig. 11) are abundant and conspicaous upon tree twigs throughout the 
winter. 

In spite of the good reputation of these "rear-horses" as insect des- 
troyers, Mr. J. H. Krancher, of Millheim, Austin County, Texas, seems 
to be the only one of our correspondents who has actually seen them kill 
the cotton- worms, as he includes them in his list of insect enemies. In 
addition, Mr. Trelease reports the following : 

My friend Mr. Joliu Wilkins, of Selina, Ala., tells me tliat in the cancbrakc ho has 
several times seen the common green mantis {Mantis Caroltna) leap upon these larvae 
(cotton-wonns) on plants near the holders of cotton-fields, hut these insects do not 
venture far from the hushes around the field. 

It is probable, however, that these insects are more abundant than it 
would seem at first glance, and when the cotton is well grown will 
probably be found in all parts of the field and not confined to the 
bushes around its border. They should never be thoughtlesslj' killed. 

The next order, Hemipteka, contains several hard-working cotton- 
worm enemies. 

The Spined Soldier-bug- (Arma {Podisus) spinosa Dallas). — This 
insect (Fig. 12) is a most useful one from its usual cannibalistic habits. 
Mr. Glover's resume of its habits is as follows :* 

"Ins. found puncturing the leaves and limhs of apple-trees and suck- 
ing out the sap (Fitch). It is, howcAa'r, also heneficial as destroying 
the larvajof the Colorado potato-hug (Doryphora lO-lineatea) hy punc- 
turing them vrith its beak and sucking out their juices. It also de- 
stroys lady -hugs {Coccinella) (American Entomologist) Andreua, a 
■wild bee, and the American gooseberry saw-fly (Prisiqyhora (jrossti- 
FiG. 12.— Anna jarm, Walsh; also the Cicada (Am. Ent., i., 4T). This insect is said 
^ ■ to be cue of the bitterest enemies to the Colorado potato-bug, and 

therefore, although it may perhaps do some injury to fruit trees, it ought to be re- 
garded as a public benefactor and not destroyed." 

There can be no doubt but that this insect does an excellent work in 
the cotton-fields of the South. Dr. Phares says, in answer to question 
6 a of the 1878 circular : 

Many are said to do so, of which I cannot testify ; but for the following I can : 
Soldier-bugs x)icrce the caterpillar, suck their juices, and thus destroy them (see illus- 
trative plate, Rural Carolinian, August, 1870, i>. G83). The soldier-bug jiresents his 
lance, moves deliberately and steadily along till the caterx)illar is impaled. 

Specimens were also received from Mr. Trelease, with the remark that 
he had observed them on several occasions to kill the cotton- worm. In 
addition to these statements, we have two more which may jjossibly 
refer to this insect, although they may just as well refer to any one of 
the many others in this order. Mr. George F. Webb, of Amite County, 
Mississippi, says : " There is an insect, the name of which I cannot 
give, that i)ierces with its beak into the worm, and the worm expires ; 
but this is Oif no consequence, the number of worms being billions 
and the bugs being comparatively few." Dr. J. U. Ball, of Bayou Sara, 
'Manuscrijjt Notes from my Journal, Hemij)tera. Washington, 187G. 





THE THICK-THIGHED METAPODIUS. 167 

La., says: "The cbiiicli-bug- known to bo one of its enemies;" and J. 
r. Krancber states that " several varieties of field bugs are known to 
attack it." 

The green soldier-bug {Rapldgaster [Rezara] Mlaris, [Pennsylva- 
nicus, of Fitch.] ). 

This insect was figured by Mr. Glover in his report on Cotton Insects 
(Kept. Dept. of Agri., 1855, PI. VIII, Fig. 5, p. 93), and in 
the text spoken of as piercing cotton-bolls and sucking 
the sap. Mr. Bailey, of Monticello, Fla., is given as au- 
tliority for the statement. It was said to be very abun- 
dant in the cotton fields. 

Concerning itskilUngthe cotton-worm, Professor Wil- 
let in a recent letter to this department has the following : 

A word about an enemy to the cotton-worm. At Montezuma, I^^*^- 13.— -Eapbi- 
Macon County, Georgia, September20, when collecting cotton-worms ^^^ ^^ ^ ^"^' 
(Aletia argillacea) for experiments, I saw one extended in tbe air horizontally from a 
cotton leaf, holding on only by his two anal feet and contorting his body about as if 
in great pain. On examination, I found a plant bug had pierced him about the anus 
and was quietly sucking his juices. I had no vial nor box, and could only drop them 
in the basket with other larvje. The next morning I found the caterpillar dead ; but 
the bug was not to be fomid. I think from the hurried sight I got it is what Glover 
calls the green Plant Bug, Plate VIII, Fig. 5. A gentleman living there told me he 
saw another cotton-worm impaled in its side by a similar bug. 

It would, of course, be unsafe to accept the identity of the insects upon 
such insufiicieut grounds, but it is i)robable that, if not the same, Mr. 
Willet's insect was an allied species of Eaphigaster. We have Mr. 
Glover's authority that either Mlaris or a closely allied species is pre- 
daceous upon the Colorado potato-beetle. It is probable also that the 
same insect is meant by several of our correspondents, who enumerate 
" green chinches " as among the enemies of the cotton- worm. A very 
conscientious correspondent says, " I have seen a green chinch sucking 
the juices of the cotton- worm ; cannot say that the worm was injured by 
the act"! 

The THICK-THIGHED ]METAPODius {AcantJiocepMla [3Ieta2}odius] fe- 
•morata, Fab., Rliinuclms nasulus of Say). — Concerning the occurrence of 
this insect in the cotton field, Mr. Glover said in 1855 : 

These insects, though somewhat numerous, were never observed to suck the sap 
from the bolls, yet it would be well to investigate their habits more minutely before 
deciding whether they are injurious or not. 

The following short account of the insect is from tbe department re- 
port tor 1875, p. 129 : 

Acantlioceplutla {Metapod'iiis fcmorata), so called from its swollen, spiny thighs, is a 
large reddish-brown or blackish insect, quite abundant in the southern cotton fields. 
It is very slow in its motions, and aiipears to be fond of basking in the sun. The 
thighs are strongly developed and spiny, especially on the under side, while the 
shanks have broad thin plate or leaf-like projections on their sides, which gave these 
insects a very peculiar appearance. The eggs are smooth, short, oval, and have been 
found arranged in beads like a necklace on the leaf of white yine. T]-.c full-gro-s/n 



1G8 



REPORT UPON COTTON INSECTS. 



insect is said to injure cherries in the "Western States by puncturing them with its 
beak and sucking out the juices, thus proving it, at least in one iustance, to be a 
feeder on vegetable substances. 

Its importance to the cotton i)lanteris sbowu 
by the following account by Mr. Trelease : 

Several bugs {Hemipfera) were seen to kill the cot- 
ton-worm. Early in the season great numbers of a large 
ill-smelling bug with dilated hind legs {Acanlhocephala 
femorata) were seen in the weeds and shrubbery about 
the borders of the cotton-fields, being very noticeable 
on account of its buzzing flight. After Aletia apjieared 
in numbers, fewer of these bugs were seen, but they 
were several times seen to catch caterpillars and suck 
the juices of their bodies. 

The full-grown insect is shown at Fig. 14. 
Planters will do well to avoid destroying either 
these insects or their eggs. 

The devil's house or wheel-bug {Priono- 
tiis eristatuSjIjin.', ReduviKsnovenarius, Say). — . 
Mr. Glover, in the 1855 report, mentions this insect as among the few 
beneficial to the cotton plant. He there mentions that he placed a young 




Fig. 14. — Acanthoccphala fe 
morata. 




Fig. 15. — Prionotus cri status, 
specimen of Eecluvius in a box with ten caterpillars, all of which it 
destroyed in the short space of five hours. 

Concerning the geiieral habits of the insect, we quote from the excel- 
lent account in the Department of Agriculture Eeport for 1875, p. 128 : 

This insect is very common in Washington, and is very destructive to insects ; and 
as agriculturists are very apt to clear their trees in spring of eggs, cocoons, &c., of 



THE EAPACIOUS SOLDIER-BUG. 169 

insects, imagiuing that they are all injurious to vegetation, it will be well to warn 
them that some species are beneficial, by destroying injurious insects, and their clus- 
ters of eggs should be preserved wherever found. Among these, a hexagonal mass of 
eggs will frequently be met with, cemented together with a species of gum or resin, 
which is said to be gathered from the tree by the female. These hexagonal masses of 
eggs are deposited on the bark of trees, on fence-rails, under the eaves of outbuildings, 
or wherever the female chances to be at the time of oviposition, to the number 6f seventy 
or more ; each egg, when separated from the mass presenting the appearance of a some- 
what square flask standing on its own bottom. The larvae, when young, arc blood-red 
with black marks, and do not resemble the adult insect, excepting somewhat in form 
and habits. The larvae, pupae, and perfect insects feed upon all other insects they 
can overcome, not even sparing their own bretkren. When very young they destroy 
great numbers of j)lant-lice. Aphides, and, when older, they prey upon caterpillars, or, 
indeed, upon any other insect they can overpower. They kill their prey by inserting 
into it the proboscis, which ejects a most powerful poisonous liqiiid into the worm. 
The victim thus pierced dies in a very short time. Then they leisurely suck the juices 
out and drop the emj)ty skin. 

The perfect wheel-bug is a large and very singular-looking insect, of very slow and 
dehberate motions when undisturbed and stealing up to its prey. It is of a grey color, 
and has a high semicircular ridge orprojectiou on the crest of its thorax, armed with 
nine perfectly arranged teeth or cog-like protuberances like very short spokes or cogs 
of a wheel ; hence the vulgar name of wheel-bug. The young shed their skins several 
times before attaining their full size. As this insect is constantly employed, from the 
moment it is hatched, in searching for and destroying noxious insects, it may be con- 
sidered a friend to the horticulturist and farmer. 

A dozen or so of these insects, placed near the nest of some of those caterpillars so 
destructive to our fruit and forest trees will destroy almost every caterpillar in it in a 
short time, as they are so extremely voracioiis that each insect will destroy several cat- 
erpillars daily. Great care must be taken, however, when handling the adult insects, 
as they are very apt to sting or rather insert their strong curved beaks into the nakedflesh, 
and the poisonous fluid ejected, when the wound is made, is extremelj' poAverful, and 
much more painful than the sting of a large wasp or hornet. One of these insects, having 
stung the writer, the i)ain lasted for several hours, and was only alleviated by appli- 
cations of ammonia. Several days afterward the flesh immediately surrounding the 
puncture was so much jjoisoned that it sloughed off, leaviug a small hole in the injured 
thumb. 

For the activeness of tlie devil's horse :n the cotton fields of the South, 
many correspondents have vouched, and j)lanters should treat him like 
the friend that he is. 

The rapacious soldier-bug {Sinea multisinnosa., De Geer, [Say's 
Beduvius rapfatorius]). — This insect (see Fig. 16) is lound all over the 
country, E^orth and South, preying upon all kinds of insects. Like the 
last-named species, whei young it devotes itself to plant-lice, but upjn 
attaining its growth it attacks insects of a l.:rger size and of more 
economic importance. In the North it has done a good work in destroy- 
ing canker-worms, Colorado i)otato-beetles, and other pests, and during 
the past summer they" were seen in considerable numbers about the cot- 
ton fields, engaged in killing the cotton- worms. 

According to the editors ot the American Entomologist, Vol. I, p. 207, 
the eggs of the rapacious soldier-bug are about the size of a common 
pin's head, are laid in two parallel rows upon the bark of limbs or twigs, 
and each egg is bordered round its tip-end with a fringe of short i^rickles. 




170 EEPORT UPON COTTON INSECTS. 

When newly liatclied, tlie young soldier-bugs may be frequently found 
in the curl of the common elm-leaf plant-louse {Schizoneura Americana), 
and also the common apple aphis {Aphis inali), busily engaged in de- 
vouring the lice ; and it is more than probable that in the 
cotton fields they will be found preying upon the cotton- 
louse {Aphis gossypii). The full-grown insect is shown at 
Fig. 16. It is brownish in color, with a reddish stripe 
down the back of the abdomen. The front legs are greatly 
enlarged and laowerfully spined, enabling the insect to hold 
its struggling prey. From these spines, and those upon 
Fig. K).— Siuea the head, it has gained its scientific name, Midtispinosa. 
muitispmosa. j^ addition to these five hemii)terous insects, many speci- 
mens of a small black and red bug were many times seen about the pupae 
of Aletia, and were often found within the loose cocoons. Although they 
were never actually observed to kill the chrysalides, their presence looks 
suspicious, especially as upon examination their beaks were found to be of 
the short, broad, predaceous type. All of the specimens forwarded to the 
department w^ere of immature individuals, from which it was impossible 
to ascertain the species. They were flat, nearly round, a trifle over one- 
tenth of an inch (3""°) in length. The head and thorax were black ; the 
abdomen had a broad red band around near the margin, and three nar- 
row transverse white bands. 

Although we have several parasites on the cotton-worm belonging to 
the next order, Dipteka, the only predaceous insects from this order are 
the Asilus flies. 

AstLUS-FLiES OR ROBBER-FLIES (Dipt. fam. Asiliidae.) — The large 
buzzing fly with long slender abdomen, and thick hairy throat, is a 
familiar sight in the cotton field to the observing planter. A popular 
name was never more appropriatelj" applied than that of robber-flies 
{'■'■ rauhflicgen''''), given to these flies by the Germans. They are among 
the most rapacious of insects ; but not only are they as indiscrimiuat- 
ing as other predaceous insects, but some species seem actually to prefer 
beneficial insects as a steady diet. There is almost no enemy which the 
apiarist fears more than these " bee-killers," as some species are termed. 
Dr. Fitch has written a very interesting account of these insects, from 
which we take the following * : 

Thescf Hies are inhuman murderers. They are the savages of the insect world, put- 
ting their captives to d(?ath with merciless cruelty. Their large eyes, divided into 
such a multitude of facets, probably give them the most acute and accurate vision 
for espying and seizing their prey ; and their loug stout legs, their bearded and bristly 
head, their whole aspect indicates them to be of a predatory and ferocious character. 
Like the hawk, they swoop upon their prey, and, grasping it securely between their 
fore feet, they violently bear it away. They have no teeth and jaws wherewith to 
bite, gnaw, and masticate their food, but are furuished instead with an apparatus 
which answers them equally well for nourishing themselves. It is well known what 
maddening pain the horseflies occasion to horses and cattle in wounding them and 
sueking their blood. These Asilus-llies possess similar organs, but larger and more 

* Fitch's Noxious Insects of New York, IX, 255. 



ASILUS-FLIES VS. COTTON-WORMS. 171 

simple in tlieir stnicture, more firm, stout, and powerful. In tlie liorse-flies the truulc 
or proboscis is soft, flexible, and sensitive ; here it is hard and destitute of feeling — a 
large, tapering horn-like tube, inclosing a sharp lance or spear-pointed tongue to dart 
out from its end and cut a wound for it to enter ; this end, moreover, being fringed 
and bearded around with stiff bristles to bend backward and thus hold it securely in 
the wound into which it is crowded. 

The iiroboscis of the horse-fly is tormenting, but this of the Asilus-flies is torturing. 
That presses its soft cushion-like lips to the wound to suck the blood from it ; this 
crowds its hard prickly knob into the wound to pump the juices therefrom. It is said 
Asilus flies sometimes attack cattle and horses, but other writers disbelieve this. * * * 
Certain it is that these flies nourish themselves xn'iucipally upon other insects, attack- 
ing all that they are sufficiently largo and strong to overpower. Even the hard crus- 
taceous shell with which the beetles are covered, fails to protect them from the 
butchery of these barbarians. And formidably as the bee is equix)ped for punishing 
any intruder which ventures to molest it, it here finds itself overmatched, and its 
sting powerless against the horny i^roboscis of its murderer. These flies appear to be 
particularly prone to attack the bees. Robineau Des Voidy states that he had repeat- 
edly seen the Asilus diadcma, a European species somewhat smaller than this of Ne- 
braska, flying with a bee in its hold. But it probably does not relish these more than 
it does other insects. We presume it to be because it finds them in such abundance 
as enables it to make a meal upon them most readily, and with least exertion, that 
these flies fall upon the bees and rose-bugs. And so lai'ge as they are, a single one will 
require ijcrhajis a hundred bees iier day for its nourishment; If these flies are common, 
therefore, they will inevitably occasion great losses to the bee-keexDcrs in that part of 
the country. 

Since the foregoing account was written, Mr. Thomson has favored us with another 
communication giving some most interesting observations upon the habits and destruc- 
tiveness of this insect, which we here append in his own words. Tie says : 

'•After sending you the specimens I watched its proceedings and habits with much 
care, and found that, in addition to the honey bee and rose bugs, it devours many 
other kinds of beetles, bugs, and flics, some of which are as large again as itself. It 
appears to be in the months of June and July that it is abroad upon the wing, destroy- 
ing the bees. None of them are now (August) to be seen. When in pursuit of its 
prey it makes quite rapid dashes, always capturing the bee on the wing. When once 
secured by wrapping its legs about it, j)ressing it tightly to its own body, it immedi- 
afely seeks a bush or tall weed u^iou which it alights and commences devoimng its 
prey bv eating (piercing) a hole into the body, and in a short time entirely consuming 
it (sucking out the fluids and soft internal viscera) and leaving only the hard outer 
skin or shell of the bee. Upon the ground, beneath some favorable jjerch for the fly 
near the apiary, hundreds of these shells of bees are found, accumulated in a single 
day. Whether the work of one fly or of several I am not able to say. I have just 
returned from a professional tour through the northei'u part of our territory, taking 
nursery orders, and in many things this business and the apiary are closely connected. 
In no case have I found a hive of bees that has thrown off a swarm this season! The 
dry weather, bad pasture, and other reasons were assigned as the cause. But many 
persons, since they have found this fly at his work of destruction, now believe it to 
be the cause of this non-swarming of the bees ;• and I am led to the same opinion. I 
have only to add further that this bee-killer delights in hot diy weather, and it is very 
invulnerable and tenacious of life. I have observed the honey-bee and also the hornet 
sting it repeatedly, but with no other effect than to cause it to tighten its hold upon 
them. Once when I forced the assassin to release his prey, he gave me such a wound 
in the hand as has taught me ever since to be very cautious how I interfere with 
him." 

Mr. Thompson, in an article in the Enral World for September 12, 
18GS, stated that he had observed one individual Asilus-fly to destroy 
141 bees in one day. 



172 



EEPORT UPON COTTON INSECTS. 




Fig. 17. — Erax hastardii. 



The early forms of the insects of this family are known of but few 
species. Of those that are known we can safely say they are vegetable 
feeders, although in the first report on the Rocky Mountain Locust, the 
larva of Erax Bastardii is figured (Fig. 17) and 
spoken of as having been observed by Miss Emma 
A. Smith to feed upou the eggs of the locust. 
In the same report, however, the larva of the 
common "white grub" [Laclinostcrna fnsca) is 
mentioned as feeding upon the eggs of the locust 
(dso* and the writer simply deduces from that 
instance that it aftbrds "another conclusive proof 
that an essential vegetable feeder will excep- 
tionally take to soft animal food." This argu- 
ment then, as the analogy between the two cases 
is perfect, we can apply to the larva of Erax and conclude it with the 
rest of the family to be normallj' vegetarian in the larva state. This ivS 
the more likely to be the case as the larva of the same species is described 
in the second Missouri Entomological Eeport as from "under a peach 
tree" and "under a creeping vine." 

In order to give a general idea of the appearance of the larva and 
pupa we will quote Harris' description of these forms of Asilus sericeous, 
Say, the larva of which devours the roots of tart rhubarb. Speaking 
of the larvae, he says : 

They -were yellowish white maggots, ahoiit three-quarters of an inch long, not per- 
fectly cylindrical hut a little depressed and tapering at each end. The head was 
small, brown, and partially drawn within the first ring, and was provided with two 
little horny brown hooks. There was a pair of breathing pores on the iirst ring, and 
another pair on the last bnt one. These maggots Avorc transformed in the eai'th to 
naked pup;e having the limbs free. The pnpa was brown and had a pair of short 
horns on the forehead, three spines on each side of the head, a forked tail, and a trans- 
verse row of little teeth aci'oss the middle of each ring of the hind body. When aboTit 
to undergo their last transformation, the pup^e work their Avay to the surface of the 
ground by the help of the little teeth on their wings. I have repeatedly seen the 
empty pupa^shells sticking out of the ground around rhubarb plants. 

So much for Asilus-flies in general. Three species 
have been captured in the cotton-fields of Alabama. 
These are Erax apicaliSy Wied., Diogmites discolor, 
Lw., and Dionyzias f sp. By far the most abundant 
species was Erax apicalis, Wied. This species (rep- 
resented by Fig. 18) varies from an inch to an inch 
jt f<^// if"^ ^^*^ ^ quarter in length (25 to 32""") and has a wing- 
expanse of nearly an inch and a half. The abdo- 
men is black with silvery markings above and whit- 
FiG. 18.— Erax apicalis. -^^ below. The top of the thorax is yellowish-white 
and brown above as seen in different lights. The legs are spiny and 
light-brown in color, and the face is nearly white. In the summer of 
1878 I observed large numbers of these insects flying around the cot- 

*First Ann. Kept. U. S. Ent. Com. on the Eocky Mountain Locust, 1877, p. 305. 




TIGER-LiiETLES VS. COTTON- WORMS. 173 

ton fields in tlie vicinity of Selma, Ala., occasionally darting to the 
gronnd and seizing some insect. With some diflicnlty a specimen was 
captnred while engaged in sucking the juices of a young grasshopper 
{Caloptemis sp.) During the past summer Mr. Trelease forwarded sev- 
eral of these insects to the department from Minter, Dallas County, 
Alabama. He stated that they w ere very abundant in the cotton fields, 
and had been several times seen to catch the cotton-moth on the wing 
and devour it. The rapacity and the capacity of these flies have been 
seen in the quotation from Fitch ; and even supposing each individual 
in the southern cotton fields in the course of a day to hill cotton-moths 
in numbers that shall seem small in proportion to the number of bees 
which Mr. Thompson actually saw them kill, we shall be obliged to put 
them down as among the very best friends of the planter. The benefits 
derived from the abundance of this insect will, however, be greatly de- 
tracted from wherever bees are kept, and it is also more than probable 
that its fondness for insects of this sort leads it to kill "wasps" and 
"hornets," some of which, as will be shown further on, are very efficient 
enemies of the cotton- worm. The harm done in the latter way is un- 
doubtedly more than compensated for by the cotton-worms killed, but 
the former habit is one which cannot be condoned, and which quite ef- 
fectually spoils the character of these otherwise beneficial insects. 

The next order, Coleopteea, contaiuoVtiy m:.ny piedaceous in- 
sects, and more species from tliis order have been found to prey upon, 
the cotton-worm than from any other. 

Tiger-beetles {Coleopt, fam. CincindeUdae). — Tiie tiger-beetles are 
characterized by having large heads, broader than the chest, long 
curved jaws and long (blender legs. They are always metallic green or 
brown in color with purple reflections in diflereut lights, ai:d are usually 
marked with light dots and stripes. They are to be found in sunny 
])aths and sandy places. They fly and run very swiftlj", and are very 
difficult to capture. Their larvae are curious in ai^pearance and inter- 
esting in habits. They inhabit cylindrical holes in the ground, which 
they probably form for themselves. They maintain their places at the 
mouths ot their pits and prevent themselves from being dragged forth 
by means of two hooks, which each carries ui)on the ninth segment of 
its body, giving it a humpbacked appearance. The heads of tliese 
larvae are large and flattened, and carry formidable ja7,s. Stationing 
themselves with their jaws at the mouths of their burrows, they lie in 
wait for approaching insects, which, when near enough, they seize and, 
retreating to the bottom of their burrows, devour. They transform to 
the pupa state within their burrows, the mouths of which they close as a 
])reparatory step. Several species are abundant in the southern cctton 
fields, and have been stated by correspondents to devour the cotton-worm. 
Unfortunately, however, these insects are ground-beetles and their ca- 
pac.ty for good in this direction is limited, as they can only attack those 
individuals which, for some reason, have fallen to the ground. 



174 



REPORT UPON COTTON INSECTS. 





The Carolina tiger-beetle {Tetraclm Carolina Linn.) was mentioned by 
Mr. Glover in the Department of Agricultnre Report for 1855 (p. 109), 
as among those insects "beneficial to the cotton plant" by destroying 
its enemies.* He remarks that "this species" appears not to be so 
partial to the light of the sun as some other species, but often conceals 
itself under stones. It is also seen much more frequently in the cotton 
fields dimng cloudy weather, toward evening, than in a fervid midday 
sun. Many specimens of this beetle liave been forwarded to the depart- 
ment during the past summer from the Alabama cotton fields 5 Dr. A. 
W. Hunt, of Denison's Landing, 
Perry County, Tennessee, mentions 
it in his list of insects preying upon 
the cotton-worm. Fig. 19 repre- 
sents very fairly the perfect insect. 
It is usually about three-fourths 
of an inch (19""") in length, is of a 
brilliant metallic color with ])urple 
and croppery reflections as viewed 
Fig. 19. — Totracha in different lights. Tlie eyes, legs, Fig.20.— TetrachaVir- 

aio ma. and mouth i^arts are of a dirty white. gmita. 

The Carolina tiger-beetle can at once be distinguished from the only other 
J!!Torth American representative of the genus Tetracha {T. Virginka) (sec 

Fig. 20) by the comma-shaped 
yellowish mark at the end of 
each wing cover. 

Other tiger beetles belonging 
to the typical genus Cicindela 
are found in the cotton fields 
performing the same good of- 
fices. We figure several com- 
mon species in order to give a 
general idea of the group. At 
Fig. 21 a larva and several 
species in the adult form are 
shown. 

Geoitnd-beetles ( Coleojyf., 
fam. Carahidae). — Almost all 
of the beetles belonging to this 
family are carnivorous, and 
the family as a whole does an 
immense amount of good by destroying injurious insects. These in- 
sects are to be found during the day under sticks and stones and 
under the bark of trees, from which places they go out at night to 
hunt for their prey. The larvae live in similar situations and are also 

*Mr. Glover uses the generic name Megacepliala in speaking of tliis insect, but this 
genus contains only South American and African species. 




Fig. 21. — Several forms of tiger beetles. 



TIGER-BEETLES VS. COTTON-WORMS. 



175 





nearl}^ always predaceous. The generalization is made by Packard that 
they are "generally oblong, broad, with the terminal ring armed with 
two horny hooks or longer filaments, and with a single false leg be- 
neath." Of these beetles all which are to 
be fonnd in the cotton fields will nndoubt- 
edlyloseno chance 

to destroy the cot- \^e/ \ J 

ton- worms. A cor- j^ /^l^^l^rN 
respondent from 
Texas speaks of- 
"the large green 
gronnd-beetle" as 
destroying the 

worms. These are, M / %6gK 
in all probability, « 
Fig. 22. — Calosom.i scrutator. Calosoma scrutator ^^^' ^'^' — C'alosoraa calliduni. 

Fabr,, shown at Fig. 22. According to Harris, this insect is known to 
ascend trees in search of canker-worms and similar insects. Another 
beetle of similar habits is Calosoma callidiim, shown 
at Fig. 23. Mr. Glover in the 1855 report fignres a 
species of Earjjahis, probably S. caliginosus Say, see 
Fig. 24, and in the text refers to it as being abundant 
in the cotton fields and beneficial by destroying the 
different enemies of the cotton plant. 

Soldier-beetles {Colcopt, fam. 
Lamjn/ridcc, genus Cliauliognatlius 
Hentz). — The family Lampyridce is 
popularly known as the fire-fly family, 
and the adult beetles are too well 
known to need description. In the 
perfect state they are nearly all veg- 
etable feeders, while the larvae are 
are nearly all carnivorous. The larvae 
-iTarpa- of Climdiognatlius are long, slender, Fig, 
imosus. flattened, tapering toward the ends, 
active, with large jaws. They are usually blackish, with pale spots at the 
angles of the segments. Cliauliognatlius Fennsylvanicus (Fig. 25) was 
found by Mr. Glover to be so plen- 
tiful in the cotton-fields near Co- 
lumbia, S. C., that four to six might 
be taken from one bloom alone. 
They seem to feed entirely upon the 
pollen or nectar of the flower, and 

would so busily engage themselves 

• , /. T -, " , -• J.1 Fig. 25. — ChaulioOTatlius Peiinsylvaniciis. 

in leednig as scarcel^^ to notice the '^ ■' 

approach of mankind. When issuing from the flower they would nearly 

always be so covered with masses of pollen as scarcely to be recognizable. 





Fig. 24. 
Ins cali 



24|. — Larva of 
Harpalus. 





176 EEPOET UPOX COTTOX INSECTS. 

They, without doubt, served a good purpose in assisting the thorough fer- 
tilization of the flower. This beetle is about three-quarters of an inch in 
length, with black head, eyes, legs, and antennae. The thorax and wing- 
cases are orange-yellow, with a large dark spot in the center of the thorax, 
and a broad black stripe down the center of each wing-case, thus leavuig 
a narrow margin of orange-yellow all around. The yellow-margined sol- 
dier-beetle {CJiauUognathus marginatus) was found by Mr. 
Glover to take the place of the Pennsylvania soldier-beetle 
in Florida. This insect (Fig. 20) is about half an inch in 
length, and may be distinguished from the former species 
by the head and lowerpart of the thighs being orange. The 
harm done by the adults is slight, if any, and the good 
1i' ^ accomplished by the larvae is probably considerable. We 

Fig. 26.— C. mar- have no definite report of their haAing been observed to 
guiatus. destroy either the eggs or the young of the cotton-moth, 
yet from their well-known proclivities they probably do so, and from the 
nuuibers in which the adults occur, we can readily sup])ose that no 
small amount of good is done in this way. At all events, the soldier- 
beetles should not be destroyed. 

LADT-BniDS, on Lady-bugs {CoJeopi.^ family CoccineJUdac.) — The 
" lady- birds" are better known, perhaps, than any other family of beetles. 
They are small, round, and hemispherical, usually red, yellow, or black, 
with spots of one or the other of these colors. All are carnivorous ex- 
cept Epilaclina. The eggs are usually long, yellow, and oval, and are 
laid in patches, often in the midst of a group of plant-lice, which the 
newly-hatched larvae greedilj- devour. The larvae (see Fig. 29) are long, 
soft-bodied, rather pointed toward the end, and are quite active. The 
jaws are small and inconspicuous. They are often quite gaily colored, 
and covered with scattered tubercles, spines, or tufts of hair. They attain 
their fall growth in three to four weeks. When about to transform to 
])U]iae they attach themselves by the end of the body to a leaf or twig, 
::iid either throw off the old larva skin, which remains around the tail, 
()Y retain it around the pupa for a protection. The pupa (Fig. 27), is 
small and rounded, simulating the true beetle. The perfect insect comes 
forth in about a week. The larvae feed upon plant-lice and other small 
insects, of which they destroy immense numbers. The adult beetles 
also destroy other insects, although in lesser number than the larvae. 
Quite a number of species of the lady-birds are found in 
the cotton fields doing good work, a few of the most com- 
mon of which we figure and briefly describe. 

CoccineUa novemnotata, Herbst. (Fig. 27 and pupa), is 
light yellowish-red in color, and may at once be distin- 
guished by the nine black spots upon its wing-covers, ar- 
FiG. 27.— Cocci- ranged as shown in the figure, four upon each wing-cover, 
nella 9-notata. ^^q ^^q I^ jj^^^j Qjjgg \^Qing the larger, and one in front on the 

middle line. CoccineUa munda (Fig. 28) is a smaller species of precisely 




THE LADY BIRDS VS. THE COTTOX-WOEM. 



177 




Fig. 28.- 
mimda. 




Fig, 





Fig. 31.— C. 
venusta. 



the same color, but without any spots upon the wing-covers. Its thorax 
is black, with two small light spots. Hippodamia convergens (Fig. 29) re- 
sembles the preceding in general ground color. It 

is larger and more elongated. On the 

wing-covers are thirteen small black 

spots. The thorax is black, with a 

light yellow margin and two lines of the 

same color ai^proaching a Y in shape. 
Hippodamia maculata (Fig. 30) is 
pink in color, with ten large black spots on the wing-covers, of which 
two are upon the middle line. The thorax is pink, with two large black 
spots, and the head is pink, with black eyes. It is smaller 
than the last-named species. Coccinclla venusta (Fig 31) is 
larger and broader. It is pink in color, with ten 

I large black spots upon the wing-covers, of which 
the hind two blend into each other across the 
middle line. The inner middle spots are shaped 
Fig 30.— h. like inverted commas. The thorax is pink, mth 
four black spots, of which the two hinder ones 
meet across the middle line to form a Y. Cldlocoriis hividnenis, Muls. 
(the twice-stabbed lady-bird), is hemispherical in form and shiny black 
in color. A little in front of the middle of each wing-cover is an irregu- 
lar bright red spot. The thorax is black, with a whitish border, and 
the head is whitish, with black eyes. 

That these lady-birds destroy many eggs and newly-hatched worms 
of the cotton-moth there can be no doubt. Mr. Trelease reports : 

I liave seen but one insect destroying the eggs of the Aleiia, viz, the larva of one of 
ihe lady-h'irds (Hijypodamia convergens'). This was on the 26th of August. The larv.a 
was searching the lower surface of a leaf, apparently for Aphides, when it encountered, 
an Aletia egg, which it immediately bit with its mandibles ; but, as if disliking its taste, 
it left the egg uneaten and passed on. Later, I saw this same larva bite another egg, 
and this, too, was left without further disturbance, but of course both eggs were killed. 
Though many hours were spent in looking for further attacks upon the eggs of Aleiia, 
the difficulties necessarily attendant upon such observations prevented me from seeing 
any more. From the actions and known proclivities of the lady-birds known as H'qy- 
podamia converf/ens, H. maculata, Coccinella mnnda, and C. d-notata, all of which are 
found in abundance on cotton plants, and of Chilocorus hividnenis, one adult of which 
was seen searching the leaves of cotton, I susj)ect that they all destroy these eggs 
more or less commonly. 

In Dr. Phares's report an unknown enemy of the cotton- worm was 
spoken of. Concerning this insect, in a later letter. Dr. Phares says: 

In my report upon the cotton-infesting insects made last autumn, in that portion in 
which mention is made of insect enemies of the Aletia, one is referred to and obscurely 
figured on paper. I find that my son had drawn it separately and distinctly, and it 
proved to be a Coccinclla or Hippodamia. We are both of the opinion that it is the larva 
cf Coccinella novemnotata, so abundant on the cotton plant. 

In his report, Dr. Phares speaks of these larvae as feeding upon the 
chrysalides of Aletia. This might seem at variance with the well-known 
12 c 1 



178 EEPOET UPON COTTON INSECTS. 

habits of these larvae (feeding, as they do generally, u])on smaller insects, 
or, at all events, upon insects of but slightly larger size than themselves), 
to attack so large an object as the chrysalis of the cotton worm; but Mr. 
Glover has placed on record a similar instance. He says : 

The perfect lady-bird also dti&trojs Aj)hides, but not iu siicli numbers as their larvae 
iu which state it also destroys the chrysalis of the butterfly (Argynnis colnmhiiia) seen 
so often iu the cotton fields. I have repeatedly observed them iu Georgia killing the 
chrysalides of this butterfly, which hung suspended from the fence-rails and on the 
under side of the boughs of trees and shrubs. It appears to attack the chrysalis 
chiefly when soft and jnst emerged from the caterpillar skin. It is in this state that 
these wandering larvae attack it, and, biting a hole iu the skin, feed greedily upon the 
green juice which exudes from the wound. Sometimes, however, it becomes a victim 
to its own rapacity, for the juice of the chrysalis drying up in the heat of the sun 
quickly forms an adhesive substance in which tlie larva is caught, and thus detained 
until it perishes. 

It is probable, however, that the destroying of the cotton-worm chrys- 
alis by lady-bird larvae is only of exceptional occurrence. In addition 
to the evidence already given, Mr. J. H. Krancher of Millheim, Tex., m- 
forms us that the lady-birds destroy the eggs of the cotton-moth, and 
Dr. E. H. Anderson mentions them among the cotton-worm enemies. 

We figure the ow/y vegetable-feeding lady-bird iu order that those in- 
terested may know what it is, and not consider it a beneficial species. It 
is known as Epilaclina horealis, Thunberg. It is much larger than any 
before mentioned, is of a light redish yellow in color, with 
seven larj^e black spots upon each wing-cover. The thorax 
is of the same color and has four small black spots. The 
head is coucolorous with the thorax, and the eyes are black. 
Both the larvae and perfect insects feed upon the leaves of 
_ . cucumbers, melons, squashes, and pumpkins — eat unsightly 

1' iCi 'V^ Ei)i- / A J- 

laclnia bo- holes in them, and, when numerous, completely destroy the 
reaiis. plant, Another beetle, of injurious proclivities, is often mis- 

taken for a lady-bird by the planters, although it belougs to an entirely 
different family. This is the twelve-spotted Bi'dhrotica, Biahrotica duo- 
decim -punctata, Fabr. This insect is shown at Fig. 33, and 
certainly does resemble Coccinella to the untrained eye. The 
principal points of difference between it and the common 
/^^l5\ Ilippodamias, which it most resembles, are that the Dia- 
FiG 33 — Dia- broticais usually greenish, varying occasionally to yellowish; 
brotica 12- that it has twelve black spots arranged iu parallel rows 
punctata, ^i^^^^^ ^^q wing-covers, and that the thorax is green and un- 
spotted. The twelve- spotted Diabrotica belongs to the family Chrym- 
melidae, or leaf-eating beetles. Dr. Packard states that they devour 
the leaves of dahlias, and Professor Riley has found them gnawiug 
melons, squashes, and cucumbers. 

In the next order, Lepidoptera, it would be fair to suppose that the 
cotton-worm had no enemies, since predaceous insects are extremely 
rare iu this Order. In point of fact there are probably but three true 





BOLL-WORMS VS. COTTON- WORMS. 179 

Lepidopteroua predatory insects upon record. These are Eiiclemensia 
Bassettella, Clemens, wliicb feeds npon the eggs of an oak-bark louse,* 
Semasia prunivora, Walsh, which feeds upon the lice of the coxcomb 
elm-gall {Colopha ulmicola, Riley), and DaJcruma coccidivora, Comstock, 
which preys upon the eggs and young of cottony mapU scale insect \ 
[Pulvinaria innumerabilis, Rathvon). 

In spite of this fact, many Lepidopterous larvae when placed in con- 
finement will destroy one another, and facts have developed which war- 
rant us in putting the boll-worm down as an occasional enemy of the 
cotton-worm. 

The boll-worm {Heliothis arniigera, Hlibn.). — Although the boll- 
worm may be put down as almost omnivorous, and although it becomes 
cannibalistic in confinement (so much so that in breeding but one can 
be kept in the same cage, anil in sending through the mails one box had 
to be allowed for each individual), we hardly expected to see it dev^elop 
any characteristic which could be called beneficial ; yet, according to 
the observations of Mr. Trelease, it seems to have done so. Mr. Trelease 
says in his report : 

Owing to its tough integument, the pupa of Alelia se^ms to be freer from insect 
attack than the larva is, yet even its hard skin does not always save it. About the 
middle of August I first noticed what appeared to be an anomalous preparation for 
pupation in the boll-worm {Heliothis armi'jera), for I found several full-grown larvae 
of this species with leaves closely webbed around them, precisely as Aletia webs up 
before changing to a pupa. An examination of one of these, however, showed mo 
that the boll- worms had not webbed them about themselves, but had insinuated them- 
selves into leaves folded and preoccupied by Aletia, the latter having already parsed 
into the pupa state ; and they had done this for the express purpose of feeding on 
these pupae ; mayiy cases of this sort were seen. 

So plain a case as this requires no comment. It is of interest scien- 
tifically but its practical bearings are slight. Earlier in hisrex)ort, bear- 
ing on this same point, Mr Trelease says : 

No Lepidopterous enemies of Aletia larvae were observed by myself, but Dr. Lock- 
wood of Carlo wville, Ala., says that a number of years ago, he saw a large green 
larva devouring numbers of cotton-caterpillars. From what we know of the habit of 
the boll- worm {Heliothis armigera) it seems not at all unlikely that these larvae may 
have belonged to that species. 

It will also be interesting in this connection to state that the boll- 
worms have been observed to kill one another on the plants, in open 
air, and perfectly unmolested, as will be shown in Part II, 

As bearing upon this i)oint of other Lepidopterous larvae attacking 
the cotton-worm, we quote the following sentence from Dr. Ander- 
son's report: "I have never seen the worm attacked by any other in- 
sect than the gr a ss-icorm and then only when brought in contact." Con- 
cerning this same insect, Laphygma fruyiperda., of Smith «& Abbot 



*Proc, Ent. Soc, Phila., ii, p. 423. 
t North American Entomologist, i, p! 25, October, 1879. 



180 REPORT UPON COTTON INSECTS. 

{Prodcnia autumnalis of Eiley), Mr. Glover, in the Department of Agri- 
culture Eeport for 1855, p. 78, says : 

The grass-caterpillars, wlaeu in coDfinement, very often kill and devonr each other, 
and ^vhen one is maimed in the least it stands a very poor chance for its life. Several 
intelligent planters state that Avhen the grass and weeds are entirely devoured, and 
no other vegetable food is to be found, they will attack each other, and feed upon the 
still living and writhing bodies of their former companions. One grass-caterpillar 
which was kept in confinement, although furnished with an abundance of green food, 
actually appeared to prefer to feed upon other caterpillars, no matter of what kind, so 
long as their bodies were not defended bj' long bristling hairs or spines. 

It is in the next order, HY^tiENOPTERA, that we find the most effective 
enemies of the cotton-worm. 

Wasps {Hymenopt, fam. Vespariae). — These well-known insects, as a 
class, although they occasionally^ do some harm by injuring fruit or by 
killing honey-bees, may, on the whole, be called very beneficial insects. 
Not only do tliej'^ devour injurious insects themselves, but they also 
store them up as food for their young. Concerning the actions of cer- 
tain wasps in the cotton fields, we cannot do better than to quote again 
from Mr. Trelease's report : 

Wasps frequent the cotton jilant in considerable numbers, being attracted, like the 
ants, in part by the nectar secreted by the plant ; and there is much reason to believe 
that all of the species which visit the plant feed more or less commonly upon the 
caterpillar or larva of Alctia. I am led to this conclusion by the following observations. 
On the 8th of August, when larvaj of the fourth brood of Aletia were very abundant 
in the swamp-cotton, I saw a large red and yellow wasp — FoUsfes heUicosa, Cresson 
(see Fig. 34) — hunting for them. Carefully walking around the holes eaten through 

by the caterpillars, she explored their borders with 
her antennae, as if feeling for the larvae ; and each 
time that she found one in this way she quickly sprang 
after it, but at the same instant the larva threw itself 
from the leaf; so that, while I was watching her, I 
saw no less than eight escape, the ninth being caught 
and eaten. Occasionally she would stop hunting 
long enough to sip a little nectar from the foliar glands 
of the plant, and then the chase was resunied. I 
was very nuich surprised to see that she relied eu- 
FiG. 34.— Polistes bellicosa. tirely on the tactile sense of the antennae for finding 
her prey. Though possessing well-developed ocelli and compound eyes, she seemed to 
make little use of them; and repeatedly I saw her alight on aleaf close toacafcerpillar 
without paying any attention to him till she touched him with her autennai, when, aa 
before stated, she would instantly spring after it. Observations of thissort were made 
several times on this wasp. Another large brown wasp (Polistes sp.) ^ as also seen to 
catch larval A Iciias, as also were a yellow-jacket hornet ( Vespa sp. ), and c.^ coniraonniud- 
dauber ( Pclopacus oceruleus, Linn. ), and they all alternated hunting for cateriiillars with 
feeding on nectar. Both species of Polistes were several times seen flying about Avifch 
dead caterpillars, having previously reduced them to a pulpy mass with their man- 
dibles. They were probably looking for some quiet place in which to ea.t them. 

Further on in the report occurs the following : 

Early in September, while watching these moths as they fed on rotting figs, I saw- 
many white-faced hornets {Vespa macnlata) about the fig-trues. One of these hornets 
was seen to catch a two-winged fly nearly as large as itself. After killing it, the hor- 




ANTS VS. COTTON-WORMS. 3 81 

net proccedcfl to doprive the fly of its legs and wings, ■wliich were allowed to fall to 
the gronnil. The fly Avas then carried away. Under these same trees I fonnd the 
wings of Alciia moths, and it looks from these as thongli these moths are sometimes 
killed by the hornet ; still, I never saw a hornet in the act of killing a moth, or with 
the dead body of one, and I am aware their usual food is flies. 

We find, then, that certain species of wasps destroy the cotton-worm, 
and also, without much doubt, the cotton-moth. The following spe(;ie8 
of so-called "wasps" were caught on the cotton plant in Alabama, and, 
in all probability feed upon the worms :* Monedula Carolina, Fab. (Hy- 
menopt., fam. Bembccidae; Elis 4:notata, ¥sihr.', Ulis plumipes, Drury 
{Hyrnenopt, i'am. ^eoMadae)', Pdopcens cwrnleus^JAnxi. (i'dvu. Sphegidae); 
Folistes hellicosa, Cress. ; Vespa Carolina, Drury. 

Ants {Hymenopt., fam. Formicariae). — The predaceous insects from 
which the cotton-worm sufi'ers the most are, without doubt, the ants. 
These insects, from their war-like habits and the enormous numbers in 
which they occur, seem jieculiarly fitted to hold in check even so dan- 
gerous an enemy as the cotton-worm. The efficacy of ants as cotton- 
worm destroyers has been noticed by but few writers upon the cotton- 
worm, and indeed there are some who insist that they never attack it. 
During my own stay at the South I never was able to see ants attack a 
worm upon the plant. Upon the ground, however, the case was far dif- 
ferent, as is shown by the following brief extracts from my note-book: 

August 28, 1878, 8 a. m. — I revisited the field; there are many larvae crawling over 
the ground. I have collected specimens of a small ant, which I find destroying these 
larvae. The head and thorax aie brown, while the abdomen is shining black. They 
sting 8eve^el3^ 

A perfectly healthy cotton-worm is crawling along the ground, an ant rushes up to 
it, and, I presume, stings it; the larva at once wriggles away a short distance — an 
inch or so (as the larva cannot get a firm hold on the ground, it is unable to si)ring 
as when upon a leaf) ; the ant foPows and repeats the attack. I have seen these ma- 
neuvers repeated many times. It often happens that the larva escapes, but fie- 
quently it is overpowered by many auts and destroyed. 

I saw a larva wriggling; a single aiit was clinging to it, and, although the larva 
struggled violently, the ant kept its hold. Soon other ants sprang uj)on the larva, 
and within two minutes it was overpowered. This occurred over a crack in the 
ground from which the ants emerged. 

In dry weather the ground cTMcks to a great extent. The ants make their nest in 
these Clacks, and while excavating them cover the sr.iface of the ground with fine 
particles of earth. It is difiicult for cotton-worms to crawl over such places; for 
when they seize hold of the loose particles of earth by their fore legs, they are unable 
to balance themselves, roll over upon their sides, and if the earth be hot, speedily per- 
ish. In this indirect way the ants cause the destru".tion of millions of the worms. 

I sent from Bacouton, Ga., spe -imens of an ant which I found there attacking and 
destroying AlUia larvae which were crawling on ihe ground. This ant does not seem 
to have the power of stinging, but worries the larva to death by biting. 

The first notice of the services of ants as cotton- vrorm destroyers that 
we have seen was by Mr. Winfree, in De Bow's Eeview for 1847. He 
stated that the rmts were a wonderiul check to the multiplication of the 

* Ideutilied by Mr. Cressoia. 



182 KEPOET UPON COTTON INSECTS. 

cotton- worm. Mr. Glover, in tlie Agricultural Eeport for 1867, p. 60, 
says : 

The eggs of tlie cotton-moth are frequently destroyed by several species of small 
ants, which ai'o said to bite the eggs open when first deposited, and to abstract the 
substance. Many caterpillars, especially if weak or somewhat disabled, fall victims 
to the voracity of the restless myriads of ants always abounding in the fields and feed- 
ing upon the honey-dew secreted by the cotton-louse or aphis, and the bodies of such 
iu sects as they can overcome. 

Dr. Phares, however, takes a very different view of the ant question, 
as advanced iu the following quotation in his 1869 essay : * 

Last year on a farm in Louisiana, as already mentioned, the caterpillar commenced 
its work as early as May, and continued until frost terminated its labor; yet one gen- 
eration succeeded another so slowly and in such small numbers that the cotton was 
scarcely injured ; while on other places where the destroyer appeared later the cotton 
plants were so early and completely destroyed as not to mature sufficient seed to plant 
another crop. Why this difference ? The owner of the farm mentioned, as well as 
others, alleged that the ania bring very numerous, carried off and destroyed the eggs and 
young caterpillars. The ants, it is true, swarmed in unwonted numbers in the cotton 
fields, as they did also in corn-fields, potato-patches, gardens, orchards, and forests. 
But on other places where there were plenty of ants constantly infesting the plant the 
caterpillar wholly destroyed the cotton. Again, iu some fields the cotton was comi)letely 
stripped, as we often see, up to a definite line on one side, while not a leaf was touched 
on the other side of this line. This occurs even where the same rows cross this line, 
one portion of the row being stripped and the other unharmed, although there were 
plentj' of ants on both sides of this mysterious line, established by the caterpillars 
themselves. And again, on inquiry, / have never found any one who has seoi the ants eat- 
ing or carrying off cither the eggs or young caterpillars. 

Here, then, it appears, is a total want of facts, and the ant theory is so far without a 
shadow of foundation on observed facts. 

The ants collected in the cotton fields were referred to the Eev. H. C. 
McCook, of Philadelphia, and he has kindly prepard the following report 
upon them : 

FOEMICAEIAE. 

The specimens of ants sent are of seven species, all of which are represented as in 
attendance upon or actually engaged iu the destruction of the cotton-worm. These 
species represent two of the three families of Formicariae, viz, Formicidae and Myrmi- 
cidae. Of these, two were too much broken to allow specific determination. 

The relation of ants to the larvje of Lepidopterons insects has recently attracted the 
attention of students. During the summer of 1877 I observed several workers of 
Formica fusca in friendly attendance upon a small green grub which proved to be the 
larva of Lycaena pseudargiolus, a butterfly.* About the same time Mr. W. H. Ed- 
wards, widely known as a student of Lepidoptera, observed the same behavior, and 
during the following year pursued his investigations further. The results he has 
given in an interesting communication to the Canadian Entomologist. He showed 
that the ants attend the larvae with the same purpose as that which attracts them to 
the Aphides, viz, to feed upon a sweet excretion which issues from the insect. In the 
Aphis this is probably excrementitious. In the larva the sweet exudation is a secre- 

* Rural Carolinian, 1869, p. 690. 
* Mound-making Ants of the Alleghenies, Trans Am. Ento. Soc, 1877, p. 290, and 
John A. Black, Philadelphia. 



ANTS VS. COTTON- WORMS. 183 

tion from the llth segment of tlie body. Mr. Edwards saw tlic auts greedily licking 
up this secretion, and caressing the body of the grub with its autenuaj. I have had 
the xileasnre of verifying a great part of his statements by personal observations. Two 
of the ants thus obtained by Mr. Edwards in attendance upon caterpillars were Formica 
fiisca and I'rcnolepis nittns. 

Some of the ants herein described are referred to by the collector simply as in attend- 
ance upon the cotton-worm. It would be interesting, as a question in natural history, 
to know whether they were engaged, as in the case of the ants above noticed, in col- 
lecting a sweet secretion. In this case they would be more likely to befriend than to 
injure their hosts. 

Several of the species, however, were actually seen by Mr. Comstock killing the 
worm. This was especially the case with the erratic ant, Dorijmjjrmcx insantis, Dory- 
myrmex flavus, and Soleiiojjsis xyloni, the "cotton-ant," as it may be termed, and Mono- 
moriiim carbonarium. The above three species include the greater part of the speci- 
mens sent, of which fully one-half were of the cotton-ant. In oue bottle the body of 
the worm was preserved contorted as in a death struggle, and a number of auts were 
clinging to it at various parts -with feet and mandibles. The larva had evidently been 
attacked, by a large number of the auts, and all were surprised by the collector in the 
midst of the fray. 

It is the habit of nearly all known species of ants to feed upon the bodies of dead 
insects, worms, and upon animal fats and juices generally. They attack small insects 
and grubs, or disabled insects and worms, quite freely for the purpose of food. 

They also attack, with great fury and iu united force, any such creatures as may invade 
their iiremises or cross their path. It seems more probable that the cotton-worm was 
attacked in this manner by the ants here described than that they were deliberately 
hunted down for food. At all events, the amount of damage done to the worms even 
by the hordes of ants that inhabit the Southern States cannot be very large. One 
"worm would furnish a day's rations for a whole colony of such small auts as these. 
The friendly offices of the emmets in preserving the cotton crop can, therefore, hardly 
have an appreciable commercial value. Nevertheless it is a matter for congratulation 
that their military services, however insigniiicant, are in the right direction. 

The following information as to auts vs. cotton-worm, collected by the Department, 
bears upon this point, and may justify a more sanguine view of the beuelicial services 
of ants than the above. The testimony has been gathered from a wide range of ter- 
ritory, extending from the Atlantic coast to Central Texas, embracing the States of 
North Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Tennessee, Arkansas, Louisiana, and Texas. It 
would appear from these observations that (1) the ants do certainly feed upon the 
eggs of the cotton-worm, and (2) more or less freely upon the larvae. That (3) the 
attacks made by the ants are more likely to occur when the worms are found on the 
ground, and (4) are coutined to bright, pleasant weather when the ants come out of 
their formicaries to seek food. One writer exi^resses the hope that the ant will ulti- 
mately exterminate the cotton-worm, of which it is now the greatest enemy ; another 
thinks that in dry seasons the absence of caterpillars is due to emmet hostility; while 
a good observer like Mr. Trelease ventures the oinnion that " ants fire probably among 
the most important of the enemies of the cotton-caterpillar." 

Are any predaceous insects or parasites known to prey upon it, either in the egg, 
larva, or chrysalis state? 

The common little red ant is the only insect known to attack it. — [H. E. Brown, 
Camden, Ala. 

Ants. — [Knox, Minge and Evans, Faunsdale, Ala. 

It is believed that the common black ant preys upon the egg. I know of none in- 
terfering with the worm or chrysalis. — [C. M. Howard, Mulberry, Ala. 

Ants are numerous at times and seem to feed on them. — [Andrew Jay, Jayville. 

I have seen the ants at work on the egg and larva. — [J. F. Culver, Union Springs, 
Ala. 



184 EEPORT UPON COTTON INSECTS. 

Ants on the egg and larva, but tbo eggs are so mncli more numerous than the ants 
that the eggs are not missed. — [J. A. Callaivay, Suowdown, Ala. 

The small red aut. — [Woebome Young, Magnolia, Ark. 

The ant preys uj^on the egg and worm to a certain extent. — [William A. Harris, 
Isabella, Ga. 

Ants of many kinds are found preying on them in good weather, but not in bad, and 
this is the reason given why the worm increases so much faster in raiuj' wet weather 
than in dry and fair weather. The cotton fields have many enemies of the worm out 
in fair weather devouring eggs and worms, but rain and rust drive these enemies 
back to their retreats, and the worm breeds without let or hinderance. — [Douglas M. 
Hamilton, Saint Francisville, La. 

Of late years the ant has proved to be the greatest enemy both to the egg and larva. 
I entertain the belief that they will ultimately desti'oy the worm should it jirove to be 
indigenous rather than of foreign origin. —[Dr. I. U. Ball, Bayou Sara, La. 

Tne common ant maintains an equiiibriuui when it is not too wet. The ant will 
destroy the eggs unless the rainy weather keeps it in its retreat. This is the reason 
that a dry season is never a caterpillar one. — [James C. Brown, Barnesvillo County, 
North Carolina. 

The family in its different stages are preyed upou by ants. — [A. W. Hunt, Denison's 
Landing, Teun. 

The little black ant will devour the eggs. — [P. S. Watts, Hardin County, Texas. 

Some species of the ant will prey upon the egg. — [O. H. P. Garret, Brenham, Tex. 

Ants. — [P. S. Clarke, Hempstead, Tex. 

Ants. — [Samuel Davis, Greenville, Tex. 

Ants i>rey upon the egg, larva, and chrysalis. — [S. B. Tackaberry, Moscow, Tex. 

Nothing but the small aut. — [S. Harbert, Alleyton,Tex. 

In dry weather the little ants that are to be found everywhere prey upon them when 
they get knocked off on the ground : or when the sun drives the ants uj) the stalk for 
protection they attack the chi'ysalis, ifec. — [Natt Holman, Fayette County, Texas. 

Ants. — [.J. H. Krancher, Millheim, Austin County, Tex. 

Ants are their common enemy. — [George W. Hazard, Kutledgc, Ala. 

In addition to this testimony to the efficacy of the ants, we will add that of Mr. 
Trelease, who says : 

From their great numbers and indefatigable industry, ants are probably among the 
most important of the enemies of the cotton-cateri)illar. Individuals of many species 
swarm everywhere on the cotton plants, to which they are attracted night and day by 
Aphides and nectar. On many cotton leaves there are places where some larva has 
©aten the parenchyma of the lower surface, but the most careful search fails to dis- 
cover the larva. Though not invariably so, these places are often eaten by very young 
larvaj of Aletia, and as these are not to be found, it looks as though they had been re- 
moved by some enemy, probably ants, though I have never seen ants attack very small 
caterpillars. In July a number of caterpillars were collected in the bottom-land, to 
which they were x^rincipally conllued at that time, and placed on cotton growing in 
dry, sandy soil, care being taken to see that there were no ants on this cotton when 
the larva was idaced on it, for my insects in breeding-jars in the house had suftered 
so much from the depredations of ants that I was always afraid of their attacking 
larvae that I wanted to study in the field ; and these particular caterpillars had been 
removed to the coff.m indicated because Iwiehed to make observations on their habits, 
and wanted thr:v. as near the house as might be, which at that time the only larvae to 
be found in numbers were about a mile from where I was living. Within two hours 
of the time of placing them on this cotton, each of these larvae was found by several 
ants, and these soou collected numbers of their fellows, whose combined attacks so 
worried the larvai that they threw themselves from the plants and were soon killed 
and carried off by their small but persistent enemies. On several other occasions 
partly grown caterpillars were killed and carried off in this way by this species and a 



ANTS VS. COTTON-WORMS. 185 

red ant, yet I never saw ants attack tlicni on the plant excepting when I had thus 
placed them on ridge-cotton for purposes of stndy ; bnt when creeping over the ground, 
as they do after eating np the foliage of the plant on which they were born, if not full 
grown, hundreds of caterpillars were attacked by these ants and killed. I have never 
seen more than one species of ant attacking any individual caterpillar, either on the 
plant or on the ground. 

Mr. Trelease further remarks, in speaking of the enemies of the chrysalis : 

In the latter part of July several Aletia, just about to pupate, were taken from the 
swamp where they were found, and, with leaves webbed about them, they were trans- 
ferred to cotton on dry soil near the house, where they were tied by their leaves to 
the petioles of this cotton; my object in placing them there being to determine the 
length of the pupa state. The same day they shed their last larva skins and this left 
them in an almost defenseless condition till the pupa skin should become tirm and 
tough. About twenty-four hours after this moult they were again visited, and were 
found covered with red aiits, which had killed and partly eaten them all, though they 
were on different plants, and care was taken to see that there were no ants on the cot- 
ton when the larvae were placed there. 

Concerning the destruction of eggs by ants he has made no positive observations, but 
states his opinion in the following words: 

Similarly, ants of quite a number of species frequent. the cotton plant, whither they 
are attracted both by the sweet excretion of Aphides and by the nectar copiously ex- 
creted from the foliar and involucral glands of the plant, and although I never saw 
them molest the eggs of Aletia, I believe that they do so. 

Family FOEMICIDAE. 

Ants without a sting. A single node upon the petiole. No contraction after the 
first joint of the abdomen proper. The nymphs sometimes inclosed within cocoons, 
sometimes naked. 

Sub-family DOLICHODERIDAE, Forel. 

Zeit. fiir wiss. Zool., xxx, supl., and Etudes Myrmecologiques, Bull. Soc. Vaudoise, Sci. Nator, 
1878, p. 3G4. 

Pedicel with a single node. The abdomen is not narrowed after its first segment. 
Nymphs always naked. Nests commonly made in the ground. Antennae 12 joints. 

Genus Dorymyrmex, Mayr. 

The maxillary palps 6-jointed, the labial palps 4-jointed. The shield a little pro- 
longed between the insertions of the antenna?. The clypeal fosse is united to the an- 
tennal fosse. The frontal area is triangular, short but distinct. The scale of the 
petiole vertical, smooth. The chitinous skin elastic. All the spurs pectinated. The 
workers have nearly always a tuft of long hairs under the head, as in the genus Pogo- 
nomyrmex. The mesothorax is a little compressed. There is a cone or toothed pro- 
jection between the posterior or basal face and the anterior face of the metanotum. 
The spurs are pectinated. Ocelli are wanting. 

No. 1. D. insanus, [Buckley]. 

1866. Formica insana [Buckley], Trans. Am. Entom. Society Philadelphia, p. 165. 
1866. Erratic ant, Lincecum, Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Pnila., p. — . 
1875. Dorymyrmex pyramiciis, Norton, "WTieeler's Pep. Geo. Exi)l., Zool., p. 734. 
1879. Dorymyrmex insanus [McCookj, Agricultural Ant of Texas, p. 197. 

This species may prove to be D.pyramicus, Rog. {Prenolcpis pyramica), as suggested 
by Norton,or more probably a variety of the same. 

Buckley's description is sufficiently indefinite, but two examples of his types in the 



186 



EEPOET UPON COTTON INSECTS. 



collection of the American Entomological Society, Academy of Natural Sciences, Phila- 
delphia, are identical with the specimens sent. 
Worker. Length, ^ inch. 

Color. — Abdomen, tip of scale and cone, femur, tibia, vertex, and f agellum, black or 
blackish. The face (except vertex), scape, tarsus, thorax, brown or brownish. There 
is no tuft of hair beneath the fa ce. They were found by Mr. Comstock actually destroy 
ing the cotton-worm. 

X>. i)isa)iiis was collected by me in Texas (1877), and a variety quite akin to it in Col- 
orado, 1879. In the former State, in the neighborhood of Austin, it was found near or 

on the tiat circular disks of the agri- 
cultural ant, Pogonomyrmex barhatus. 
In Colorado the nests were found in 
great numbers in the Garden of the 
gods and vicinity, upon the clear 
space surrounding the gravel-covered 
mounds of Pogonomijrinex occidenialis, 
Cresson, which, like its Texas con- 
gener, is a harvesting'species. Two, 
three, and four of the former nests or 
openings would be placed upon the 
latter. The external architecture of 
2). insanu8 is simply a moundlet of 
sand, two to four inches in diameter, 
gathered around a small opening into 
the ground like the familiar nests of 
Lasitis flavus, the little yellow ant 
which burrows in such multitudes 
in our garden walks and lawns. 

In action the erratic ant is vigorous 
and active. It is remarkably cour- 
FiG. 35. — Dorymyrmex insanus. ageous, and was often observed by me 

to attack successfully the Occidental ant. In one case a small colony of erratics pushed 
up its gate in the midst of one of the principal thoroughfares of a large occidental formi- 
cary. Thereafter the little erratics tluug themselves upon nearly every occidental that 
passed with such vigor and abandon of courage as to linally compel the latter, though 
greatly superior in size and armed with a formidable sting, to give up the gangway, and 
excavate an opening beyond the erratic boundaries. One remarkable example of this 
especially attracted my attention. Upon the circumjacent clearing of an occidental nest 
which was being opened for the study of internal architecture, there were three nests or 
gate-ways of an erratic colony. My invasion of the formicary had, as is usual, aroused 
the occidentals to the highest pitch of belligerent fury. They attacked me with so 
many and painful stings as quite to sicken me. Yet the erratics freely assaulted these 
irate insects as they ran hither and thither whenever they trespassed upon their bor- 
ders, and invariably drove them away. If such intrepid little warriors were to devote 
their atttention to killing cotton- worms they would doubtless do good execution. 

The genus and jjrobably this species is widely sjjread throughout tropical and sub- 
tropical America. It feeds upon the sweet exudations of plants, galls, and sweet excre- 
tions of the Aphis ; but, like most ants, is fond of the juices of insects. 

No. 2. D. flavus, n. var. 

Worker. Length, ^ inch. 

This variety is identical with insanus, except in the color, which is a uniform honey- 
yellow, and the contour of the thorax. The apex of the abdomen and the flagellum 
of the antennae are tipped with a blackish hue. The variety appears to be quite per- 
manent, the distinction holding in a number (25 or 30) of specimens examined. The 
cone is evidently higher than the thorax. There is no tuft under the face. 

Habitat, United States. Southern States. 




ANTS VS. COTTON- WOKMS. 



187 



Genus Iridomyrmex, Mayr. 

Verhdl. d. k. k. zool.-bot. Ges. in Wien, Bd. xii, 1862, Z. 702. 

The workers vary very little, and only in size. The worker and the male are of the 
same size ; the female is much larger. The maxillary palps have 6 joints, the labial 
palps 4 joints. The clypeus is a little prolonged between the insertions of the an- 
tennae. The clypeal fosse is joined witb the antenual fosse. The frontal area is 
triangular, indistinct. The scale of the petiole 
is vertical, unarmed. The sculpture of the 
body is very fine ; the chitinous skin is clastic 

and not brittle, as is the case for the most ( \ \ \ V7nC\J~y\ * 
part in other ants; all the spurs are pecti- 
nated. 

No. 3. I. McCooki, Forel, in I'M. 

This ant is a small yellow ant, about three 
thirty-seconds of an inch in length. Dr. Forel 
refers to it in his £tudes Myrmecologiques for 
1878. p. 382, and reference is also made to it 
in my Agricultural Ant of Texas, pp. 202-3, 302. 
I found numbers of this species traveling in 
long lines across or near to the nest of the 
agricultural ant. Usually their route was es- 
tablished upon blades of grass growing on the 
uests or along low tufts of grass on the mar- 
gin. They traveled in single, or " Indian " tile, 
one behind the other. They appear to be on 
friendly terms with their large neighbors. 
The specimens sent me in alcohol were taken 
in the act of attacking the cotton-worm. 

Subfamily MYEMICIDAE, Smith. 

Ants having a sting, except with the males. 
Two nodes or joints upon the petiole. The 
nymphs always naked. 



Catalogue Brit. Hymenoptera, 1851. 

Genus Crematogaster, Lund. 

The second joint of the petiole articulates 
upon the superior face of the first segment of 
the abdomen. Abdomen is cordiform, flat- 
tened above, rounded below, and pointed at the extremity. The maxillary palps 
have 5, the labial palps 3 joints. The antennaj have 11 joints. The metanotum ia 
furnished with two spines. 




Fig. 36. — Crematogaster lineolata. 



No. 4. C. lineolata, Say. 

1836. Myrmica lineolata, Say, Boatoa Journal Nat. Hist., vol. i, p. 290. 

1866. Oecodoma (Atta) arborea, Buckley, Trans. Am. Ento. Soc. PhU., p. 349. 

1866. Crematogaster liTieolata, Mayr, Verh. zool.-bot. Ges. in "Wien, xvi, p. 90L 



Worker major. 
Worker minor. 



Length, ^ inch (Figs. 4, 5, 6). 
Length, ^ inch. 



188 REPORT UPON COTTON INSECTS. 

Color. — The abdomen is black, shining, except at the base underneath, which is red- 
dish brown ; the petiole, thorax, flagellum, and tarsus yellowish brown ; the head 
blackish at the vertex, as also the legs, except the tarsus. The body is lightly pube- 
scent, the abdomen being sparsely jirovided with hairs. The ant when excited has the 
habit of turning its abdomen up, and even bending it over the thorax, as in Fig. 9. 
The favorite nesting place is under stones or underneath and within the decayed matter 
of old logs and stumps. This material is sometimes prepared by the ant as a paper- 
like pulp, and arranged into cells and chambers, which are attached to the sur" 
faces of the logs. This ant is widely distributed throughout the United States; is 
abundant in the Middle States. 

Texas. Queen, Figs. 7, 8. 

No. 5. Crematogaster clara. 

1870. O. clara, Mayr, Verhandl tier k. k. zool.-bot. Vereins, "Wien, p. 990. 
1806. Oecodoma bicolor, Buckley, Trans. Am. Ento. Soc, Phila. 

Buckley's name has the priority over Mayr's, but as Smith had x>ublished a species 
under the same name (Proceed. Linn. Soc, 18(30, p. 109) several years before Buckley's 
descrii^tion, the name given by Mayr is that by Avhich the insect is properly known. 

The habits of the ant are probably the same as those of C. Uneolata. It was found 
in the stem of the cotton plant, but was not observed destroying the worm. 

Texas. E. A. Schwarz. 

Genus Solenopsis, Westwood. 

Ann. and Mag. Nat. Hist., 1841. 

Mandibles enlarged at the extremity, and having the terminal margin d» ntated. 
Antcnnie 10-jointed ; the two last joints very large, and together form a club. Tlie 
maxillary and labial palps have each two joints. Metanotum without teeth or 
spines. The clyjieus has two longitudinal ridges. The sting very large. 

No. 6. Solenopsis xyloni, n. sp. (?) 

"Worker major. Length, I inch, Fig. 10 ; side view of same, Fig. 11 ; view of head en- 
larged, Fig. 12. The head, body, nodes, and abdomen are of a dark claret-brown color, 
glossy, covered with stout hairs. The flagellum of antenna; and the tarsi are a 
lighter color. 

Worker minor. Length, -j^ inch. Color as in the worker major. 

Female. Length, more than ^ inch (9™™), Fig. 12. The body is of a uniform amber 
color. The single specimen is uuwinged. 

The largest number of specimens sent belong to this species, but no habits are noted 
except that the ant kills the cotton-worm. In one bottle the caterpillar is preserved, 
with a number of the dead ants still clinging to it by their mandibles. Solenopsis is a 
mining ant, and lives in nests made in the groun(5. Some species of the genus oc- 
casionally place their homes within or very near the bounds of other species of anfs. 
S. fugax, for example, according to Dr. Forel (Swiss Ants, p. 233), lives, without 
danger, in the very center of the formicaries of Formica fusca, Polyurgus rufescens, Tetra- 
morium caesjntum, &c. They are always enemies of their hosts. 

Genus MoxoMORiUM. 

No. 7. Monomorium carbonarium, Smith. 

Catalogue Brit. Mua., Hymenoptera., Fomiicidae, p- 127. 

Worker. Length, -^^ incli. 

This is a small, black, shining ant, and was taken in the act of killing the cotton- 



PARASITES OF THE COTTON WORM. 



189 



"womi, a specimen of wliicli (iu alcohol) was fairly black with the hordes of tiny em- 
mets which clung to it. 

Note. — I am indebted to Dr. Auguste Forel for valuable aid in the determination of 
the above siiecies. My own studies of ants having been heretofore chielly directed to 
their habits and structure, I sent examples to Dr. Forel, aud received an answer barely 
in time for use in verifying and correcting proof-sheets. I cordially acknowledge his 
Iriendly assistance. 

The specimens of Dorymyrmex insanvs, sent Dr. Forel regards as D. pyraviicus, Roger, 
Berlin Ento. Zeit., 18G3, p. 1800. Solenopsis xyloni he believes to be S. geminata, Fabr. 
I have nevertheless allowed my name 
to stand jirovisionally, until further 

examination, for the following reason, <p^ ^^V '-^''n^^Jv^ 

among others. The specimens sent ^ /i a 

me by Mr. Comstock were quite nu- 
merous, aud were all workers, major 
and minor. Neither these nor speci- 
mens from Texas in the American En- 
tomological Society collection had ex- 
am^iles of the large-headed soldier 
caste, which belongs to S. geminata, 
specimens of which I have Irom 
Florida. 

ILLUSTRATIONS. 

Fig. 35 (a). Dorymyrmex insanus. 
Dorsal view, enlarged. 

Fig. 35 (b), D. insanus. Side view, 
enlarged. The natural length is indi- 
cated by the line beneath the figure. 

Fig. 35 (c). D. insanus. View of 
head. 

Fig. 3G (a). Crematogasier lineolata. 

Fig. 3G (&). Side view of same. 

Fig. 36 (c). Same; view of head. 

Fig. 36. (ri). Same; queen; side view. 

Fig. 36 (e). Same ; wing of queen. 

Fig. 36 (/). Same; view of insect when excited, with abdomen turned up. 

Fig. 37 (a). Solenopsis xyloni. Dorsal view, enlarged. 

Fig. 37 (h). Same; side view. 

Fig. 37 (c). Same; view of head. 

Fig. 38. Same of queen ; side view. 




Figs. 37 and 38. — Solenopsis xyloni. 
Enlarged. 



PARASITES. 



The abundance of the true parasites of the cotton-worm, and the num- 
ber in which they occur, renders their consideration of the highest prac- 
tical importance. 

Taking into consideration the number and variety of these friends of 
the planter, and the way in which they may make themselves obvious to 
every one who tries to work out the life history of the cotton- worm, it 
seems very strange that several recent writers should have entirely 
overlooked their i^resence. Mr. Grote, in his paper before the Ameri- 
can Association for the Advancement of Science, stated that he had 



190 REPORT UPON COTTON INSECTS. 

never been able to observe any parasites, although he admitted that 
such might exist; and Professor Eiley, in the 1878 circular of this 
department, states the fact that no enemies of the cotton-worm have 
hitherto been reported. We mention these two instances in particular, 
because the undoubted ability of these naturalists renders their state- 
ments all the more singular. The fact is that not only were parasites 
well known to many observers throughout the South, but no less than 
six accounts had been published with tolerable popular descriptions of 
Pinipla conquisitor (a large ichneumon which extensively infests the last 
brood of the worms, issuing from the chrysalis in midwinter or early 
spring), and two very fair figures had also been pubHshed. 

In 3847 Dr. D. B. Gorham, of Bayou Sara, La., in the same paper in 
which he proposed the migration theory, drew up a description of "the 
yellow-banded ichneumon," as we shall call P. conquisitor in this report. 
This was, as we think, the first notice of any parasite. Dr. Gorham's 
description was as follows : 

Let us take a pocketful of tliese home and place them beneath tumblers, and wait 
patiently to see what they will produce. If I had found a treasure my delight could 
not have been greater than that I experienced at the idea of unraveling the mystery. 
But man is prone to disappointment, as we shall soon see. About the 15th of Novem- 
ber the insect appeared, but, mirahile didu, as different from the cotton-fly as it is pos- 
sibly to suppose one insect could differ from another. It belonged altogether to a 
different family, a description of which I give as follows: 

AntenuiB filiform, black, six lines in length. Palpi four ; two external and two in- 
termediate, the external white, twice the length of the other two, in shape angular, the 
angle projecting externally. The two middle are straight, scarcely perceptible over 
a strong light; they are of a dark color. Wings, fonr; hymenopterous, incumbent, 
extending to and exactly even with the end of the tail ; shape of the wings, which are 
email and extremely delicate and thin, is like that of a fan. Front legs half the length 
of the posterior of a unifonn orange color: the intermediate legs very little longer 
than the anterior; the thighsof a deep orange color, the rest of the leg annulated with 
black and white, the rings being larger than those of the intermediate. The trunk 
is of a uniform shining black, as would bo the upper surface of the abdomen also were 
it not for the very narrow white bands which connect the black scales together, giving 
to the abdomen an annulated appearance; these white lines do not encircle the abdo- 
men, but terminate uniformly on the sides. On the under surface of the abdomen 
these white rings again commence, which are much larger than those on the upper 
surface, causing the abdomen to look almost white. The tail terminates in a bifurca- 
ted sheath inclosing a long blunt sting, projecting considerably beyond the tail, and 
forming a very prominent feature in the general ligure of the insect. This is a small 
slender insect, much longer than the honey-bee, but not so thick. 

Now, it isevident from itsspecific character, as well as fromits parasitic nature, this 
insect belongs to that numerous class called ichneumons, of which there are upwards 
of five hundred species. As I am not at present in possession of any practical work 
on entomology, I cannot determine the species of this ichneumon, but to show that it 
difiers in some respects from the family to which it belongs, I will quote a paragraph 
from a work before me, in which are set forth some peculiarities belonging to that 
class of insects as a genus : 

The whole of this singular genus have been denominated parasitical on account of 
the very extraordinary manner in which they provide for the future support of their 
young. The fly feeds on the honey of flowers, and when about to lay her eggs, perfo- 
rates the body of some other insect or its larvae with its sting or instrument at the end of 



PARASITES OF THE COTTON-WORM. 191 

the body, and then deposits them. The eggs in a few days hatch, and the yoimglarvae, 
■which resemble minute white maggots, nourish themselves with the juices of their 
foster-parent, which, however, continues to move about and feed until near the time 
of its changing into a chrysalis, when the larvae of the ichneumon creei) out by per- 
forating the skin in various places, and each spinning itself up in a small oval silken 
case, changes into a chrysalis, and after a certain period they emerge in the state of 
complete ichneumons. 

It will be seen that there is a peculiarity attached to this ichneumon not included 
in the above description, that of appropriating the chrysalis as well as the larvae of 
other insects to the use of the young. All ichneumons that I ever read of spin their 
own chrysalis, but this is the prince of parasites, for not content with eating the sub- 
stance of his neighbor, he seizes also on his house. So far as I have read concerning 
this curious family of insects, this is a nondescript. 

Thus is answered the question why the cotton-fly did not again eat up the scant 
foliage which subsequently appeared on the stalks. This little usurper goes forth in 
search of " whom he may devour," and as soon as he finds a house built and well pro- 
visioned, he seizes upon it for his posterity, which he does in the following manner : 
When he finds a cotton-worm he pierces it with the instrument with which its tail ia 
armed, and deposits an egg. The cotton-worm soon spins itself up into a case, there to 
await the period of its perfection, which never arrives, for soon the egg of the ichneu- 
mon hatches and falls to devouring his helpless companion. This work of extermina- 
tion continues until there is not a vestige of the cotton-worm left. 1 venture to say 
while I am now writing (1st of December) there is not an egg, chrysalis, or fly in the 
confines of the United States. 

In 1851 Mr. Thomas Affleck, late of Brenham, Tex., then of Washing- 
ton, Miss., whom we have had frequent occasion to refer to in this re- 
port, in his Southern Rural Almanac for that year figured an ichneumon 
parasite of the cotton- worm. It is impossible to say whether the yellow- 
banded ichneumon or the ring-legged Pinipla is meant by this figure. 
In the text Mr. Affleck says : 

We owed our exemption during the season of 1848 to the destruction of the cotton- 
moth when in the chrysalis state by an ichneumon, the insect here represented. From 
many scores of chrysalides which we had collected for observation these ichneumons 
issued, one from each. The parent had deposited her egg within the shell of the chrysa- 
lis, where it hatched, preyed upon the insect within, until time to undergo its own 
transformations. 

The continued enormous production of cotton caused the excessive multiplication 
of the cotton-moth, with whose increase multiplied the ichneumon — a precious provis- 
ion of the beneficent Creator, "who doeth all things well." 

Again, in the Department of Agriculture report for 1855, Mr. Glover 
figured and described P. conquisitor, although he attempted to give it no 
name. He says (p. Ill): 

Some chrysalides of the cotton-caterpillar, which had been preserved during the 
autumn of 1855 as an experiment to see whether they would live until the following 
spring, having been hatched out prematurely by the heat of the room in Avhich they 
were kept, two ichneumon flies were produced of a slender shape and about half an 
inch in length. The abdomen or body of the female was black, and marked with seven 
light-colored, yellowish, narrow rings around it ; the head is black, with the eyes* 
brown, the antennae long, jointed, and nearly black ; on the head were three ocelli ; 
the thorax was black ; the wings transparent, of a rather yellowish tinge, veined with 
black, and having a distinct black mark on the outer margin of the upper pair; the 
first joint of the hind leg was comparatively large, thick, and of a brownish color; 



192 REPORT UPON COTTON INSECTS. 

tlio tliiglis were also brown ; the tibiae black, with a broad white band in the middle ; 
the tarsi were white, tipped with black ; the ovipositor protruded more than the tenth 
of an inch. The male presented much the same appearance as the female, but was 
more slender in form. 

The figure given is not so good as this excellent description would 
warrant us in expecting, but this cannot be said to be any fault of Mr. 
Glover. Tlie next ijublished account of parasites is not until 18G7, and 
is again by Mr. Glover. He sajs, in the Department of Agriculture re- 
port for that year (p. 61) : 

The cotton-caterpiUar is also destroyed by a small yellow and black banded ichneumon 
fly, which deposits its eggs in the worm. This egg-hatching produces a footless grub, 
which feeds in the body of the caterpillar, at first avoiding all the vital parts and de- 
vouring the fatty matter alone, leaving the larva with strength to spin its cocoon and 
change into a chrysalis, with its internal foe still in its body. The grub then, after 
devouring the remainder of the interior, changes into a pupa, and finally emerges 
from the dried chrysalis skin as a full-formed, four-winged fly, somewhat resembling 
a very diminutive wasp. 

Dr. D. p. Phares, in his lecture before the Farmers' Club of Wood- 
ville, Miss.,* from which we have quoted so frequently already, mentions 
Dr. Gorham's paper incidentally, and also mentions his views on para- 
sitism — enough to put it again in print and to make it an additional 
source of wonder to us that later writers knew nothing of it. Dr. Phares 
says: 

Many years ago the late Dr. Gorham, of Louisiana, published his observations of 
the chenilles made during the then current year. Having collected a number of chrys- 
alides, he took them home and watched them closely to see the cotton-moth come 
forth from the pupa case. But, to his astonishment, instead of the Anomis, a swarm 
of ichneumon flics came out — not one cotton-moth in the entire lot. In his new-born 
joy and earnest desire to cheer the desponding cotton-planter, he speedily proclaimed 
through the press the results of what he deemed a great discovery ; that henceforth 
the cotton crop-was safe; the cotton-catcrpiHars were done for; they could never seri- 
ously injure another croji; the ichneumon fly had destroyed them all. 

Another account of parasitism was i:)ublished by Mr. William Jones, 
the senior editor of the Southern Cultivator, in the March, 1SG8, num- 
ber of that journal. He says (speaking of the hibernation of the cotton- 
worm) : 

About the middle of February we visited the same field again. A majority of 
chrysalid cases (which were still abundant) we found empty, with every indication 
of the insect having matured and escaped. A limited number we found apparently 
unchanged, and started back rejoicing that we had been able to replace those de- 
stroyed by the bird; but alas ! upon accidentally crushing one we found within it an 
ichneumon, and this proved to be the case with all we had collected. Some of the 
ichneumons had completed their transformation and were about to come out as per- 
fect insects. 

In addition- to these published accounts of parasites, the answers of 
the correspondents of this department to question 6a of the 1878 circu- 
lar show that mauy insect enemies of the cotton- worm were well known 
throughout the South. 

* Rural Carolinian, 18G9, p. 689. 



THE COTTON- WORM EGG-PARASITE. 193 

Let us now enter into a detailed account of these parasites. Up to 
the time of the present writing thirteen distinct species parasitic upon 
the cotton-worm, in one or another of its stage, have been bred in the 
department. Of these, eight species are hymenox)terous and five dij)te- 
rous. 

The cotton-worm egg-parasite {TiicJiogrmmnci prefiosa, Hiley). — 
In the latter part of the summer of 1878 a small lot of cotton-worm eggs 
were received at the department, with which it was proposed to deter- 
mine the time and manner of hatching, the length of time elapsing be- 
tween the different moults of the worm, and various facts of that char- 
acter. The eggs were placed in a glass breeding-jar, but much more 
than the usual time seemed to elapse before the hatching. One morn- 
ing, however, a number of very minute flies, so small as scarcely to be seen 
with the naked eye, were found flying around the jar, and the eggs were 
empty. Here, then, was a true egg-parasite, the mother fly having laid 
her egg within the egg of the cotton-moth, and her i^rogeny having lived 
and undergone its transformations within that limited space. Whether 
more than one parasite issued from a single egg was not determined. 
These parasites belonged to the great hymenopterous family Ckalcididac, 
a family composed of a very great number of parasitic species, distin- 
guished by their generally very minute size, brilliant metallic, or varie- 
gated colors, elbowed antennae, nearly veinless wings, and naked pupae. 
They are parasitic upon other insects in their early states ; some, from 
their minute size, are reared within the eggs of other insects, but the 
majorit}^ infest larvae and puj)ae. They especially attack Lepidoptera, 
but also attack species of some of the other orders. 

The species under consideration is one of remarkable beauty. The 
general color is yellow, with brilliant red eyes. The wings are very del- 
icate and transparent and present prismatic colors when viewed in dif- 
ferent lights. The wings are fringed with excessively fine hairs ; their 
surface is also covered with still finer hairs. In length they are only a 
trifle more than one-hundredth of an inch (.3"""), but, like all of the 
subfamily to which they belong, are very ^i;**'^*.,^,,^ V v ^ ^ 

active and are great leapers, springing |.::;i;^0'-|^'^^^'^ \^^J 

sometimes to a distance of two or three ^^'> /--'-^"^ V=')^ 

An allied species {Trieliogramma mi- ^'^^p^^^ttt/tt^ /^ iw\N 

nuta) has been reared from the eggs of ^ ^^fx. /l)'tk/p*i 

the dissippus butterfly {Limenitis dissqh ^^^ ^^ -^ % Wa^ 
p2is, Godt.). In this case from four to six e- v^ #^ ^ *^^5^ 

individuals have beeu reared from a single ^^^- sy.-TrichograQima miuuta. 
egg of the butterfly, and this seems to be about the normal number. It is 
probable, then, that more than one parasitic egg is laid within the egg of 
the cotton-moth. Fig. 39 (T. mhiutajHiley) will give a very good idea of 
the general appearance of the magnified insect. The cotton-worm egg- 
13 CI 



194 REPORT UPON COTTON INSECTS. 

parasite proved to be a new species, and consequently tlie following 
scientific description of it has been published by Professor Eiley : 

1. TiaCHOGRAMMA PRETIOSA, n. sp. — Length about 0.3™". Yellow, the eyes red, 
the wings hj'aline. Head wider than the thorax ; antenna? 5-jointed, joints 3 and 4 
in the $ forming an ovate mass and together shorter than joint 2; joint 3 large, thick- 
ened and very obliquely truncate ; in the $ joints 3, 4, and 5 form a more or less dis- 
tinct, elongate chab, beset with long bristles. Hairs of the wings arranged in about 
fifteen lines. Abdomen not so wide as the thorax, but as long as the head and thorax 
together; in the $ the sides snbparallel, and the apical joint suddenly narrowed to a 
point. Described from numerous specimens reared from eggs of AUtia argUIacea. 

Differs from TricJiogrammamimtta, Riley (Third Rep. Ins. Mo., j). 158, fig. 72, 9 )i in 
its smaller size and uniform pale yellow color, and also in the form of the third and 
fourth joints of the antennte. As defined and figured by Westwood, the antenn?e of 
Tnchogramma are G-jointed. Walker, in his "Notes on the Chalcididje," pt. vi, p. 105, 
employing Forster's characters, says the antenniB are 8-jointed ; but an examination 
of the figure of the type {Trkhogramma cvanescens, 1. c, ]}. 114) shows that one of the 
joints counted is the "annulus" above the scape, which I do not consider to be a true 
joint, and that what I have indicated as the apical joint, in agreement with West- 
wood, is represented in that figure as three coalesced joints. I have proposed the 
generic name of Fcntarthrujn for mimita in MS. now in Mr. Scudder's hands, but 
until the allied genera are better characterized than at x^resent it is best to use tlie 
old genus Trichogramma. 

With the other twelve parasites the egg is laid upon the larva of 
Aletia, and the perfect insect emerges either from the larva or froui the 
pupa. Three of these species belong to the same family as the egg-para- 
site just mentioned, namely, to" the ChalcicUdae. 

The ovate chalcis {Chalcis ovata, Say). — This species seems to be 
one of the most abundant parasites of the cotton- worm in many parts of 
the South. It is one of the largest of its family, measuring over one- 
fifth of an inch (5"™) in length. The glassy appearance of its abdomen 
and its swollen hind thighs gives it a characteristic look, and renders it 
impossible to mistake it for any other cotton- worm ijarasite. From the 
4th of August until the 10th of September these little fellows were con- 
tinually issuing from the chrysalides sent for breeding puri)oses. There 
may have been one brood previous, and there probably was one later, 
the chalcid wintering in the pupa state within the chrysalis of the 
cotton-worm. The i^arent fly lays her eggs ui)on the backs of nearly 
full-grown cotton- worms, probably more than one egg upon each indi- 
vidual, although we have never observed more than one of these para- 
sites to issue from a single worm. The young larvae feed ui)on the 
worm's internal parts, choosing by preference the fatty tissue, and avoid- 
ing all vital organs until they become full-grown. During this time 
the cotton-worm has probably attained its full growth and webbed up. 
The parasite eats its host out pretty thoroughly before undergoing its 
own transformations. Both of its changes from larva to pupa and from 
pujia to fly are undergone within the dead chrysalis of the cotton- worm, 
and the perfect fly gnaws a round hole near the head of the chrysaUs 
to make its exit. An examination of many clirysalides from which these 
parasites have issued shows that the hole of exit is invariably near the 



CIRROSPILUS ESURUS. 



195 




Fig. 40. — Clialcis ovata. 



head, and, upon breaking tliem open, the abdomen is found to be filled 
with excrement of the larva, and the cast-off skins of larva and pupa. 
Fig. 40 shows the ovate chalcis enlarged, 
and also a chrysalis of Aletia i)ierced by 
the exit of the parasite. 

We can find no published record of the 
fact of the parasitism of this insect upon 
the cotton- worm, and are not aware that 
it was bred prior to 1878. 

The following is Say's original descrip- 
tion of the insect : 

C. OVATA. — Robust, black ; feet yellow, thighs black at base, head with a golden re- 
flection. 

Inhabits Ohio and Pennsylvania. 

Head black, with golden sericeoiis hair, which is indistinct on the vertex ; antennae 
testaceous beneath towards the tip ; stethidiura with dilated, dense punctures, a little 
sericeous with golden hair ; scale covering the base of the wings, yellow ; wings 
hyaline; nervures fuscous, at base jialo yellowish; feet bright yellow ; basal half of 
the anterior pair of thighs black ; jiosterior thighs smaller than the abdomen, black, 
with a yellow spot on the tip above, dentated on the posterior edge ; jiosterior tibia? 
pisceous on its basal incisure ; terminal sjiiue robust, shorter than the first tarsal 
joint ; first joint of the posterior coxjb with a robust tooth above near the tip ; abdo- 
men subovate, i)olished; first segment nearly glabrous, second segment hairy on each 
side, remaining segments hairy near their tips. Length one-fifth of an inch. 

CiRROSPiLUS ESURUS, Riley. — Another chalcid parasite, of much 
smaller size than the last, was reared in con- 
siderable numbers from the chrysalides of the 
cotton- worm during the summer of 1878. It 
proved to be a new species of the genus Cir- 
rospilus, and has been described under the 
specific name esurus by Professor Eiley, in 
a recent number of the Canadian Entomol- 
ogist. His descrii)tion is as follows : 

2. CiRROSPiLus ESURUS, n. sp. — Length 1.5™"'. 
Dull black ; knees, tibite and tarsi yellowish, the -9^ 
l>osterior tibiaj sometimes dusky. Eyes with scat- 
tered, short bristles. Antennas of the <? 9-jointed, ^^^- 41.— Cirrospilus esurus. 
with the joints of the flagellum subequal and beset with bristles, the ninth joint small. 
Antenna? of the 9 8-jointed, the fourth and fifth shorter than the second and third, 
the three apical joints forming a club. Thorax above microscoincally punctate ; jiarap- 
sides distinct and elevated ; scutellum with a longitudinal, impressed line on each 
side. Wings hyaline, pubescent, but the cilia short ; base of ulna uneven ; radius not 
developed. Abdomen short and sessile, ovate. Described from numerous specimens 
reared from the -pn-pn of Aldia argillacea. 

This species shows relationshij) with the genus Tetrastichus, Halliday, and may ul- 
timately be referred there. For the present I prefer to place it in the older genus. 

It is then a little black fly only about six-hundredths of an inch in 
length, with yellow legs. From their small size, many of them can find 
their sustenance in a single cotton-worm, and many of the adults were 
bred from a single chrysalis. 




196 



REPORT UPON COTTON INSECTS. 




Fig. 42. — Unnamed chalcid. 



Unnamed chalcid parasite. — The following passages from my notes 
concern a parasite which, owing to a press of other affairs, has not yet 
been worked up. 

August 27. — I found yesterday a cotton-worm about five-eigliths of an inch in length 
•which, althongh yet alive, was being destroyed by three green larvae vuhich vrere 

upon it. I found the specimens about 10 
a. m. Last evening I observed that the 
cotton- worm was nearly eaten. The para- 
sites had very short bodies, which when 
they moved were pointed at one end. I 
had intended to describe the specimens 
this morning, but I find they have spun 
cocoons about their bodies. 

August 28. — I found crawling over the 
ground a small cotton-worm infested by 
five par.asites evidently of the same species 
as those mentioned in my note of August 27. 
August 29. — The small green parasites 
which I found yesterday destroyed the cot- 
ton-worm, and, excepting two specimens whichliiut in alcohol, began to spin cocoons 
during the night. 

The insects bred from these specimens were small, black, chalcid flies, 
shown at Fig. — . They were nearly eight-hTindredths of an inch (2'""') 
in length. The general color was black, but the legs, antennae, and 
mouth parts were honey-yellow. The head, thorax, and abdomen were 
nearly equal in width, and the thorax was longer than the abdomen, 
which was pediceled and subtruncate at tip. The antennte were 7- 
jointed. 

The larvae were greenish white, oval, somewhat pointed at one end, 
with yellow spiracles or breathing-holes, and were fleshy and footless. 
They were sluggish in motion, moving by the alternate contraction and 
expansion of the segments. The number of segments of the body was 
plainly thirteen. The fall-grown larvae were about 0.08 inch or 2'"°^ in 
length, and were about half as wide as long. The cocoons which they 
spun were ovoid in form, grayish white in color, and about the size of the 
full-grown larvae. 

That these larvae spun cocoons is an interesting fact, as by far the 
large majority of the Chalcididae transform to naked pupas within the 
bodies of their hosts. The fact of their being found preying externally 
upon the cotton-worms is an anomalous one. Had the worms upon which 
they were found been more nearly fuU-grown, and had the effects of 
their outside work been less apparent, their appearance might have been 
explained on the ground that they had finished their work inside and 
had merely issued to spin their cocoons, and were observed in the in- 
terval between their issuing and the commencement of the spinning. 
The cotton-worms upon which they were found, however, were less than 
half-grown, and could not have afforded these parasites subsistence from 
the birth of the latter upward. Moreover, the rapidity with which the 



DIDYCTIUM ZIGZAG. 197 

cottou-worms were destroyed after they were found showed that they 
could uot have been preyed u^jou long prior to the date of observation. 
On the other hand, it is difficult to see how these parasitic larvae with 
their sluggish habits could find the means of migrating from one cotton- 
worm to another, as it seems probable that they must do after devouring 
the individual upon which they are born. The whole question is one of 
considerable interest, but cannot be solved without further observa- 
tions. 

The proctoteupid paeasite of the cotton woem {Bklyctium 
zigzag, Eiley). — September 10. 1879, a number of small i^arasitic flies 
issued from chrysalides of the cotton-worm. Upon examination these 
proved uot to be Chalcids, but to belong to the allied family Froctotru- 
pidae. The members of this family differ from the Chalcids in their usu- 
ally slenderer body and longer anteunoe. The antennae, also, are not 
elbowed as in Chalcididae. It is a family of very minute species, which 
are all sujiposed to be parasitic, many of them upon the eggs of other 
insects. 

The species under consideration is shown at Fig. 43. These flies are 
black, jjolished, with the antenna? and legs dark 
yellow. The autennce of the female are 13-jointed, 
the firstjoint club-shaped, the second almost globu- 
lar ; 3 to 7 are much thinner than any of the oth- 
ers ; 3 about as long as 2 ; 4 to 7 almost globular ; 
4 a little thinner at base ; 8 to 12 about equal in \ 
size, round at base, and squarely cut off" at apex ; 
13 as long as preceding, ending in a rounded blunt 
l)oiut. The antennce of the male are very long, Fig. 43.— Didyctinm zig- 
about as long as the whole insect. The wings ^^°' 

are clear and sparsely beset with short, blackish bristles, and with quite 
a long fringe around the edge. The veins of the wings are yellowish. 

These insects are about .OG of an inch (1.5'"'") in length. 

These parasites were bred only upon a single occasion. Then many 
specimens were mounted. Whether they were all from one chrysalis or 
not it is impossible to say with certainty, but the probabilities are that 
they were, and it seems probable also that it is not a common parasite. 

The specimens were handed to Professor Eiley for determination. 
He deemed it necessary to found a new genus for them, of which the 
following are the characters. A specific description follows the generic. 

DiDYCTiUM, nov. gen. — Head transverse; three ocelli approximate and triangularly 
arranged; labial palpi 3-joiuted; palpi 3-jointed; antenna} inserted in front and close 
together, in the $ hardly reaching to the abdomen ; 13-joLnted, the two basal points 
stout, joints 3-7 suddenly narrowed and together not much longer than 1 and 2, 
3 being twice as long as the others, 8-13 nearly twice as stout, peduncled, subequalin 
length, very slightly narrowing toward tip; in the <? as long as body, 15-jointed, 
joint 3 twice as long as any of the others, 4-13 subequal in length. Thorax as long as 
abdomen, slightly wider in the middle than the head; scutellum prominently raised, 
subovate and marginally ridged ; legs with the tarsi uniformly 5-jointed ; front wings 




198 EEPOET UPON COTTON INSECTS. 

•without stigma, the veins forming Tvith the costa two closed cells ; hind wings with 
a costal vein reaching and broadening to near the middle of wing, where it is sud- 
denly bent upward. AMomen narrower than thorax, with a short peduncle. 

D. zig-zag, n. sp. — Average length, 1.6™™. Body uniformly polished black. Legs, 
palpi, and antennae reddish in female, the coxae, femora, and antennse toward tip infus- 
cate in the male. Peduncled joints of antennse with a whorl of minute spines around 
the crown, and longitudinally striate. Base of thorax and of abdomen with pale 
pubescent hairs. Wings hy.aline, sparsely beset with minute spines, which increase 
radially and form a fringe around the posterior half; the veins of front wiugs forming 
a sprawling W, with partial cross-veins j)roceeding from the lower angles, the basal 
cross-vein longest. 

The next three parasites which we shall mention belong to the family 
Ichneumonidae, or ichneumon flies, as they are commonly and familiarly 
called. These insects are characterized by unusually long and slender 
bodies, and the long projecting ovipositors of the females. These ovi- 
positors are often very long, and are protected by a sheath of four stylets 
ef the same length as the true ovipositor. The head is usually rather 
square, with long many-jointed antennae. The larva is a soft, cylindri- 
cal, fleshy, white, footless grub, the rings of the body being convex and 
the head small. The eggs are laid by the parent either on the outside 
or within the caterpillar or other larva upon which its young is destined 
to feed. When hatched, the larva devours the fatty portions of its 
victim, just as we have seen with foregoing parasites, until it gradually 
dies. The larva spins a cocoon about itself when about to enter the 
pupa state. In the larger species this cocoon consists of a dense inner 
case, and a loose, thin outer covering. Of the larger species but one 
individual occuines the body of the host, while in the smaller species 
many are found within one insect. The cocoons of most species are 
spun within the body of the parasitized insect ; but others, as in the 
genus Microgaster, emerge and spin their small, oval, often bright-colored 
cocoons on the outside. The family, as a whole, is one the members of 
which are of immense service to agriculturalists in destroying great 
numbers of noxious insects. 
The yellow-banded ichneumon (Pimpla conquisitor, Say). — This 
is one of the most nimierous and most noticeable of 
, the parasites of the cotton- worm. It was the species 
observed by Dr. Gorham and Messrs. Affleck and 
Glover, and probably also the one spoken of by 
Mr. Jones. It was first scientifically described by 
Thomas Say, in 1835, who found it in Indiana.* 
He described it under the generic name of Cryptua, 
Fig 44 — fimpla con- ^^^ ^^ ^^* since been put in Pimpla by Mr. Cresson. 
quisitor. A recent note from Mr Cresson informs us that 

Say made the curious mistake of describing the male as a different 

*'Say's original description is as follows: 

C. conquisitor. — Black ; terg-um, with the posterior margins of the segments, white ; 
feet honey-yellow ; posterior tibiae and tarsi with black joints. 
Inhabits Indiana. 
Body black, punctured; palpi white; thorax, punctures minute; a longitudinal 




PIMPLA CONQUISITOE. 199 

species from the female, under the name of 'pleimrinctus. The species 
varies much in size, and Say hapi^ened to meet with a small female 
and a large male, and, the face of the male being white, the mistake 
was thus made.* 

The history of this species, and several published descriptions of it, 
have already been given in the beginning of this subhead. Its habits 
coincide with those laid down in the characterization of the family of 
ichneumons. The yellow-banded ichneumoix was bred extensively from 
the chrysalides of the last brood of cotton-worms, and, so far as we are 
aware, has never been bred from any preceding brood. Dr. Gorham 
bred them from the chrysalides of the last brood only, as also did Messrs. 
Glover and Jones. During the past summer we have bred in the depart- 
ment nearly two thousand chrysalides from the Alabama cotton fields 
and not one specimen of the yellow-banded ichneumon was seen, although 
many other parasites were obtained, as will be shown hereafter. Dur- 
ing the fall and winter of 1878 many specimens of conquisitor were bred 
from chrysalides of this last brood, and we are under the strong imjjres- 
sion that none were bred from earlier broods, but this we are unable to 
state positively, as the notes on this point are in the possession of Pro- 
fessor Eiley. This, however, is all negative evidence, and although it 
shows that the last brood is usually extensively parasitized by the yel- 
low-banded ichneumon, it does not prove also that previous broods are 
not affected to a small extent ; and this is probably the case. We are, 
as shown by the evidence adduced above, totally unable to say how 
many broods of this parasite are produced in a year, as we only know of 
the one bred from the last crop of cotton- worm chrysalides. 

white Hue before the wings ; metathorax not distinctly punctured on the disk ; wings 
very slightly tinged with dusky ; nervures blackish ; stigma rather large, -with its 
base and tip whitish ; second cubital cellule oblique ; tergum densely punctured on 
every part ; segments on their posterior narrow margins white ; oviduct about half 
the length of the abdomen ; feet honey-yellow ; intermediate and posterior tarsi 
white, the joints black at their tips; i)osterior tibiae black, white in the middle. 

Length one-fourth of an inch. 

* Say's descrii>tion oi pleurivinctus is as follows : 

C. pJeurhjinctus. — Black ; segments of the tergum margined with white. 

Inhabits United States. 

Body black ; thorax with a short line before the wings and wing-scale yellow ; wings 
hyaline, with a slight dusky tinge ; nervures blackish ; stigma rufous at the stricture ; 
second cubital cellule quadrangular, somewhat oblique, meeting the radial cellule in 
an angle; abdomen almost sessile; tergum with the first segment excavated near the 
base; densely jjunctured ; all the segments with narrow white posterior margins; 
oviduct exserted, short, hardly half the length of the abdomen ; feet honey-yellow, 
posterior pairs with the knees, tips of the tibia;, and each tarsal joint black. 

Length over half an inch. 

^ Hind pair of feet with an annulus on the tibije and base of each tarsal joint white. 

The male is much smaller than the female. I obtained a female from a follicle of 
the common folliculate Linnean Bombyx with transparent wings, which were extremely 
abundant a few years since in Maryland, causing much apprehension for the safety of 
the trees of their choice. Some of them were obtained for me by my friend Mr. Gil- 
liams, for examination, when I described them imder the name of hi/alina, but did not 
publish the account. 



200 EEPORT UPON COTTON INSECTS. 

That the earlier broods, if such exist, may "be reared in other insects 
is possible from the fact that very many members of this family are not 
confined to one species of insect, and from the fact that Say described 
the original individuals as from Indiana; and it is probable from their 
rarity, if not actual absence, among the earlier broods of cotton- worms. 

The length of time Avhich it takes one of these parasites to undergo 
its transformations has not been observed. This would undoubtedly 
facilitate our knowledge of the number of broods. If the larva spins a 
cocoon at all, it is very slight ; so slight, indeed, that upon breaking off 
the end of the parasitized chrysalis the pupa of the parasite is exposed 
to view. The perfect insect emerges in late fall, in midwinter, and in 
early spring, through an irregular hole which it gnaws through the skin 
of the chrysalis, usuallj' near the head. 

The fact that these parasites are frequently alive within the chrysa- 
lides throughout the whole winter has given rise to the supposition on 
the part of many that the chrjsalis itself was still alive, from the mo- 
tion imparted to it by the contained insect, and have thus been led to 
believe imi)licitly in the hibernation of the cotton-worm in the chrysalis 
state. Many chrysalides were sent to the department during the past 
winter by persons holding this belief, but, without exception, those speci- 
mens which still seemed to have life contained each the pupa of a yel- 
low-banded ichneumon. We have already quoted from Mr. William 
Jones's graphic description of an experience of this sort. Dr. Anderson 
was deceived in the same way, and chrysalides which he had kept until 
some time in December were shown by Mr. Schwarz to be parasitized. 

The evidence given by Dr. Gorham and Mr. Affleck, as well as our 
own exi)erience the past year, would seem to show that this parasite is, 
during certain years, very abundant indeed ujion the last brood of worms, 
and although it might at first be said that the good accomplished by 
them is smaller than if they were abundant Avith preceding broods, yet, 
when we consider that every individual of the last brood which is parasi- 
tized reduces by just so much the number of possible hibernators and 
founders of families the succeeding spring, then we can appreciate the 
amount of good which this parasite accomplishes, and although we may 
not indorse the somewhat extravagant estimates of Dr. Gorham and 
Mr. Affleck, still we may consider ourselves deeply indebted to the yel- 
low-banded ichneumons. 

The eing-legged pimpla {Pimpla annulipes, Br.). — September 1, 
1879, there issued from a cotton-worm chrysalis one specimen of the 
ichneumon to which Professor Riley gave the above popular name in 
his fifth Missouri Entomological Eeport. This is the only si)ccimen 
which has been bred this year. It is an old acquaintance, having been 
bred from the walnut case-bearer {Acrohasis ju[/landis, Le B.) by Dr. Le 
Baron, and from the codling moth of the apple {Carpocapsa pomonella) 
by Professor Riley. It is a widely distributed species, being found all 
over the country, north, south, east, and west, and that it is common is 
shown from the fact that Professor Riley bred 20 females from a lot of 




CRYPTUS NIINCIUS. 201 

162 apple-worm cocoous. In these he found great variation in size, some 
measuring but one-fourth of an inch in length, while others reached 
one-half. 

Eoughly describing this parasite, we may say that it presents a nearly 
black api)earance above, the under side of 
the abdomen being honey-yellow. When 
viewed with a lens, the upper surface of the 
abdomen is seen to be covered with close 
punctures, while the thorax is nearly smooth. 
The legs are reddish yellow with the excep- 
tion of the middle joint of the hind pair, 
which is black, with a broad yellow ring in 
its middle. The hind feet are dusky. The 
female ovipositor is dark shining red. The 
palpi are pale yellow. According to Cresson 
(the authority on xlmericau Ichneumonidae), 
annuUpes may be distinguished from other ^, ,-,.■, 

-^ "^ ° IiG. io. — rnupui aiuuuipes. 

specimens of the genus by the scutellum 

(the hind part of the thorax) being black, the tegulae (scales at the base 
of the front wings) white, and the anterior coxae (round joints at the base 
of the front legs) yellowish red. 

Professor Eiley states that the ring-legged pimpla eats its way through 
the chrysalis and cocoon of the codling moth without having i)reviously 
made any cocoon of its own ; and we may reasonably suppose the same 
to be the case when it infests the cotton-worm, making it similar to 
Pimpla conquisitor in this respect. 

Cryptus nuncius. Say. — Another ichneumonid parasite, belonging to 
a different genus from the last two discussed, and known by the above 
scientific name, was bred from cotton chrysalides, on two occasions or 
more, in the department last season. It is a very common parasite, and 
has been often bred in large numbers from the cocoons of the larger 
Bombycid moths. I have bred no less than 35 individuals from one 
cocoon of Telea polypliemus. It is probable that several may occasionallj^ 
be bred from one chrysalis of Alctia., but the notes taken on this point 
last year are in the possession of Professor Eiley. 

The following is Say's original description of this insect : 

C. nuncius. — Black; abdomen, excepting the base and tip, rulbus. 

Inhabits Pennsylvania. 

Body black, palpi white, blackish at tip ; antenute of the female with a long white 
annulus in the middle; thorax immaculate; two impressed lines; wings hyaline; 
nervures brown; stigma rather slender; second cubital cellule rather large, penta- 
gonal, the two angles on the radial nervuro nearly rectangular ; recurrent nervures 
almost rectilinear ; tergum, basal segment wholly or in part black ; second, third, and 
generally half of the fourth rufous or honey-yellow, remaining segments black; 
oviduct nearly half the length of the abdomen ; feet honey-yellow ; posterior pair of 
tibiai at tip and knees black ; posterior taisi j)ale yellowish. 

Length about two-fifths of an inch. 

I obtained many specimens from the larva of Attacus prometMa, Linn., several 
years ago. 



202 EEPORT UPON COTTON INSECTS. 

This concludes our list of liymenopterous parasites of the cotton- 
worm. The remaining live belong to the order Diptera, or two-winged 
insects. 

The Tachina flies (Dipt, family Tachinidae). — Two of these two- 
winged parasites belong to the famDy Tachinidae. The members of 
this family are i^arasitic upon other insects, the females depositing their 
eggs upon the bodies of caterpillars, &c., and the young larvae hatch- 
ing, penetrate into the interior of the body and live upon the fatty por- 
tions of the victim. The number of eggs laid ui)on a single caterpillar 
varies with the size of the caterpillar. Serville is said to have reared 
as manj^ as 80 specimens from a single larva of Ackerontia atropos. I 
have frequently observed as many as 15 to 20 eggs of JS^emoraea leucaniae^ 
Kirkp., upon a full-grown larva of the army-worm of the North [Reli- 
opMla unipuncta, Haw.). Eight seems to be the largest number which 
has been found upon the cotton-worm. 

These Tachina flies have much the appearance of the ordinary house- 
flies, but are usually larger. Their eggs are tough, white, opaque, 
oval, and somewhat flattened on the side towards the body, to which 
they are firmly attached by a gum insoluble in water. With the slug- 
gish caterpillars these flies have little difficulty in depositing their eggs 
when, how, and where they please. They always place them upon the 
back of the head, or on the first three or four segments of the body, in 
such a position, in fact, that the caterpillar can in no way reach them. 
With flying insects, however, the case is more difficult. We quote from 
Keport of the the Entomological Commission on the Eocky Mountain 
Locust : 

The slow-flying locusts are attacked while flying, and it is quite amusing to watch 
the frantic efl"orts which one of them, haunted by a TacMna fly, will make to avoid 
its enemy. The fly buzzes around, waitiug her opportunity, and, when the locust 
jumps or flies, darts at it and attempts to attach her egg under the wing or on the 
neck. The atteuipt frequently fails, but she perseveres until she usually accomplishes 
her object. With those locusts which fly readily she has even greater difficulty; but 
though the locust suddenly tacks in all directions in its eiforts to avoid her, she circles 
close around it, and generally succeeds in accomiilishing her purpose, either while the 
locust is yet on the wing, or, more often, just as it alights from a flight or hoi>. 

The parasitic larva, when ready to hatch, eats its way through the 
G,gQ on the side towards its victim and burrows into its flesh. They 
seem endowed by nature with a fondness for nothing but fatty tissue, 
which teaches them to leave the vital parts of the host alone. When 
full-fed and ready to transform they do not, as did the last-mentioned 
parasites, transform within the shell of the insect from which they have 
obtained their nourishment, but perforate the skin and enter the ground 
to the depth of from half an inch to two inches. Here they contract to 
brown oval puparia and remain for a longer or shorter space of time. 
According to Eiley, the last brood usually winters in these puparia. 
The following spring the fly issuing works its way to the surface of the 
ground and takes wing. 



TACHINA ALETIAE. 203 

These insects are among the most efiective parasites of many noxious 
insects. The Northern army- worm is frequently ahnost exterminated in 
localities by Nemoraea leucaniae, Kirkp., and JExorista flavlcauda, Riley. 
The Colorado potato-bug has been killed off in great numbers by Lydella 
doryphorae, a member of this family, and the Eocky Mountain locust 
found in TacMna anonyma one of its most determined enemies. It would, 
indeed, have been strange had not at least one species of this family 
been found among the cotton-worms. 

In November, 1878, two specimens of what seemed to be a new species 
of TacMna were bred from the pupa of the cotton- worm. From these 
specimens Professor Riley has described the species, in a recent number 
of the Canadian Entomologist, as TacMna aletiae, n. sp., as follows; 

3. Tachina axetiae, n. sp. — Lengtli, 8'"". Black ; head golden, facial depression 
silvery, space between the eyes and the frontal stripe about equal to the breadth of 
the stripe, bristles of the head black, the pubescence behind and beneath the eyes 
white ; antennae blackish, paljii testaceous. Eyes at a moderate distance apart, thinly 
pubescent ; front inoderately iirominent ; third joint of the antennae three or four 
times the length of the second joint. Thorax and the second and following abdominal 
joints more or less ashy, the thorax with four or five longitudinal black stripes. Wings 
subhyaline. Legs black, with a j)iceous tinge ; tarsal cushions yellowish. Scutellum 
and the sides of the first, second, and third abdominal joints sometimes tinged with 
reddish-brown. No strong bristles on the first and second abdominal joints above. 

Described from two sj)ecimons reared in November, 1878, from the pujja of Aletia 
argillacea. 

During the season of 1879 many of these j>arasites have been bred. 
The latter part of July Mr. Trelease forwarded a quantity of parasitized 
larvae from Dawson's Station, Ala., with the following note : 

July 24, 1879. 
I mail you to-day a box containing some 95 pupae and webbed-up larvae of Aletia. 
* * * I find nearly one-half of the larvae from one-third to two-thirds grown bear- 
ing small white eggs on their backs. (It is only for the last few days that I have no- 
ticed this, but it has probably been the case with this entire third brood.) These 
eggs are of two sizes. The larger are usually, perhaps always, deposited singly on the 
dorsum of one of the thoracic segments of the larva, and placed transversely or ob- 
liquely. They are elongated, oval at the two ends, but more often bluntly rounded. 
Their length averages about 8™'", their breadth 2"^™. They are very slightly flattened 
on the surface by which they are attached. Sometimes, when no egg can be seen, a 
discolored mark of the size and shape of the egg is seen on the back of the larva; in 
other cases a discoloration below the skin of the thorax appears to show the presence 
of a parasite larva. The smaller eggs are also white, and measure about G'"™ by 2™™, 
from which you will see that they are broader proportionally, and consequently more 
oval than cylindrical. They are slightly more flattened on the under surface as a 
rule. These are deposited on the side and back of the head and thoracic segments, 
and vary, in the cases so far noticed, from one to four in number ; sometimes, where 
there are several, being scattered almost in contact with each other. 

These eggs were fastened very firmly to the back of the larvae, and 
were all so placed that the victim could by no exertion reach them with 
its jaws. In some cases they appeared to be even sunk beneath the 
skin, and Mr. Trelease records the fact in a later letter that he has 
seen the skin shed without the egg being also cast off. The adult flies, 



204 



REPORT UPON COTTON INSECTS. 



from these specimens sent July 24, began to issue September 1. This, 
taken in connection with the fact that the specimens reared in 1878 is- 
sued in November, would seem to argue three broods a year for this 
species of Tachina, the last two broods certainly destroying many cot- 
ton-worms. 

An examination of the specimens issuing from this lot of worms 
revealed two individuals of a new species of TacMna, differing from T. 
aletiae in several respects. "\Te shall not attempt to name it, but draw 
up the following temporary descrii)tion, to last only until the specimens 
can be handed to an expert : 

Tachina, n. sp. — Length G ™'". 

Color. — GeuLTal effect nearly black ; head, face, and facial depression silvery white, 
inclining slightly to golden ou occiput ; antenuie, 1st and 3d joints black, 2d joint 
testaceous ; palpi testaceous ; pubescence behind the head blackish ; thorax, second 
and following abdominal joints ashy ; thorax with two plain longitudinal black stripes 
and two indistinct ; first abdominal joint black above, ashy beneath ; femora piceous; 
tibiae and tarsi nearly black. Eyes finely pubescent. In other respects resembling 
T. aletiae, Riley. Described from two specimens. 

Flesh-flies {J^q)t., fomily Sarcophagidae, genus SarcopJiaga). — 
From general appearance it would be impossible to separate a tlesh-fly 




Fig. 46. — Sarcophaga carnaria. 

from a Tachina fly, and only by the help of a lens is it possible to dis- 
tinguish them 5 the principal difference beiug that in the family noAV 
under consideration the style of the antennae or antenual bristle is plu- 
mose or hairy, although naked at the tip, while in Tachinidae it is naked 
throughout its length. These flies have long been considered remarka- 
ble on account of their viviparous habits. Tlie eggs are long and deli- 
cate and hatch quickly. If the female is unable to find a suitable place 



FLESH-FLIES. 205 

to deposit them within a given time after fertilization they hatch within 
her body, and we have the phenomenon of a viviparous insect. The 
ovaries are large aud arranged in a spiral manner, and De Geer is said 
to vouch for the development of 20,000 larvae in one female. The dis- 
tinction between the earlier forms of the flesh-flies and Tachina flies is 
said by Professor Eiley to be that — 

The Tachina larva is rounded posteriorly, witli a small spiracular cavity, easily 
closed, and having a smooth rim ; it contracts to a pupa, which is quite uniformly 
rounded at each end. The Sarcophaga larva is more truncate behind, with ilcshy warts 
on the rim of the spiracular cavity, and with a more tapering head; it contracts to a 
pupa, which is also truncate behind and more tapering in front, where the prothoracic 
spiracles show, as they never do in Tachina. 

It is the general habit of the flesh-flies to deposit their eggs or young 
upon dead and putrefying animal matter, but they are often known tc 
thus infest living animals, thus par-taking of the nature of parasites. 
Their habits are then similar to the 
Tacliinidae. The larva lives within the 
insect, and similarly issues when full 
grown to pupate under ground. 

During the summer of 1878 several 
specimens of a flesh-fly were reared 
from pupae of Aletia. These proved 

to be specimens of Sarcophaga sarra- Fig. 47.— Sarcophaga carnaria var. 

ceniae Eiley, a probable American vari- sarraceuae. 

ety of that widespread scavenger Sarcophaga carnaria^ Linn., a species 
common to Europe, America, and Australia certainly, and probably else- 
where to be found. Sarraceniae was first described by Professor Eiley, 
in a paper read before the Saint Louis Academy of Sciences, as feeding 
upon the dead insects to be found in the leaves of Sarracenins. Fig. 47 
represents this insect in its various stages, and the following is Professor 
Eiley's description of the species : 

Sarcophaga sarraceniae, n. s. 

Larva. — 0.30-0.85 inch long; body composed of but 11 visible points, exclusive of 
the head ; microscopically aud transversely shagreened ; transversely wrinkled, the 
hind wrinkle on each joint more j)articularly prominent laterally. 

Head extremely small, or one-fourth as large as joint 1, showing a division into two 
maxillary lobes at the tip, and a larger labial lobe beneath, Avith a small bunch of 
setons fibers issuing from it ; the black retractile jaws of the ordinary form issuing 
between these lobes, and the antenuaj showing in two small rufous projections above 
the maxillary lobes, sjiarsely armed anteriorly with minute, conical, sharp-pointed 
spines, decurved in front, directed backward beneath. Prothoracic spiracle pale, 
rufous, retractile, sponge-like, studded with numerous lobules divided at the end into 
a variable number of branches (6 being usually apparent, never more than 8), which, 
in their turn ramify into lobules. Anal stigmatic cavity quite deep, the fleshy prom- 
inences on the carina surrounding it subobsolete ; the stigmata but slightly excavated 
below the border, brown, inclosing three brown openings, the lower ends of which 
reach to a circular, clear space in the corneous and pale rufous peritreme. Anal pro- 
legs quite small, with the longitudinal anal slit between and a corneous plate in front 
of them. 




206 EEPOET UPON COTTON INSECTS. 

PUPARIUM.— 0.25-0.50 incli long; neither smooth nor highly polished, and varying 
from yellowish-brown to deep brown-hlack in color. Insections more or less dis- 
tinctly traceable. Head and prothoracic joint retracted; the prothoracic spiracles 
protruding and forming two small ears about as long as joint 2; the mass of lobules 
hardened and rufous ; joints 2 and 3 constricted and flattened, 4 suddenly bulging. 
End of body squarely docked by spiracular cavity, the rim of which forms quite a 
ridge. 

Imago. — Length of body 0.23-0.56 inch. Head pale golden-yellow, especially 
when viewed from above, with a dark brown or bronze sheen, especially below ; 
eyes ferruginous in life, duller and bronze-colored in death ; stripe between the eyes 
and all appendages jet-black, though showing in fresh specimens shades of brown or 
yellowing-brown, especially at inner base of autennjB and on maxipalps. Thorax 
pale ash-gray, with three prominent dark, longitudinal dorsal vitt'c, and two which 
are shorter on each side, the two intervening pale dorsal spaces showing also a nar- 
row darker line along their middle ; wings slightly fuliginous; teguliB sordid white; 
legs black, with the front thighs grayish beneath; cushions large and pale yellowish ; 
abdomen of the same gray — inclining, in some specimens, to pale golden- yellow, espec- 
ially behind— checkered with black, the pattern varying with each change of light, 
but 3 longitudinal lines tolerably distinct from above, the side ones approaching or 
joining the medial one on the anterior part of each joint, and the Avhole looking 
checkered as the light falls on the sides ; anus always, and frequently the hind mar- 
gin of preceding or 4th abdominal joint, pale reddish-brown, the color deepening and 
becoming less noticeable in the dead specimen ; the globular and highly polished ^ 
genital organ of a brighter and deeper reddish-brown. 

Described from numerous specimens reared from Sarracenia variolaris and S. flava. 

Eemarks.— Though there is such great variation in size — depending, no doubt, on 
the amount of nourishment obtainable by the larva— there is not much in coloration. 
The species compaie tolerably well with the description of carnaria, except in 
having a red anus, and should, perhaps, be considered only a variety of this last. 
Whether it be any of Walker's or Desvoidy's species m(!ntioned in Osten Sacken's cat- 
alogue I have no means of positively knowing, but I have carefully read over the de- 
scriptions of Meigen, Macquart, and Wiedemann without feeling warranted in refer- 
ring it to any of them. Several of the brief descriptions of these authors might an- 
swer for it, barring the red anns, for a number of them consist of two or three lines, 
without measurements ; and, for aught the student can see to the contrary, several of 

them apply to one and the same species. 

******* 
The larva differs from Packard's description of that of carnaria in the character of 
the prothoracic spiracle in lacking the 12 blunt spines around the anal spiracular re- 
gion, and in having the clear space in the peritreme of the anal spiracles, by which it 
seems to agree more with his description of CaUiphora, and to indicate that this fea- 
ture cannot be looked upon as of generic value, as Dr. Packard suggests it may be.— 
(Trans. St. Louis Alad., iii, 238.) 

Several specimens of sarraceniae have been secured the present sum- 
mer (1879), and also what is probably a new species of Sarcopliaya. 

On August 12, together with a lot of chrysalides from Alabama, were 
received the eggs of this new flesh-fly. They appeared to have been 
deposited singly upon the leaves which the cotton-worms had wrapped 
about them preparatory to transforming to chrysaUdes. These eggs 
were white and extremely delicate. In size they were about 1-3""" by 
.3'""', or 0.0515 inch by .0119 inch. One side is flattened and in fact 
slightly concave, so that in a profile view the Qgg resembles a razor- 
shell, one end being somewhat truncate and the other rounded. The 



FLESH-FLIES. 



207 



next day after their arrival, August 13, these eggs hatched. The young 
larvae were of the same size and about the same shape as the egg. They 
immediately made their way iuto the cotton-worm chrysalis, to which 
the leaf was attached. They were seven in number. In four days they 
had demolished the chrysalis and increased greatly in size. Having 
finished this chrysalis, they emerged and crawled about, evidently search- 
ing for more food. Another Aletia pupa was furnished, which they de- 
stroyed in less than three days. In this way some five or six pupae were 
eaten out by them. On the 20th of August they appeared nearly full- 
grown, and on the 23d all but one transformed to puparia — only ten 
days having elapsed from the time of birth. 

The full-grown larva was about a half inch (12.5""") in length, 0.119 
inch (3™'") in width at the posterior end of the body, which is truncated. 
From this point it tapers gradually down to the head, which ends in a 
nearly sharp point. Its color is white. But twelve segments to the 
body are discernible, the head being entractile within the first thoracic 
segment. At the juncture of the segments there is a projecting rough- 
ness around the body, more prominent, however, on the lower side, for 
purposes of locomotion. The larva, then, corresponds pretty well with 
Professor Eiley's general statements concerning Sarcophaga larvae just 
quoted, but the puparium seems intermediate between that of Sarco- 
phaga and Tacldna. It will be remembered that one of these distinc- 
tions which he lays down as between Tacldna and Sarcophaga is that the 
puparium of the former is "quite 
uniformly rounded at each end," 
while that of the latter is " trun- 
cate behind and more tapering 
in front, where the prothoracic 
spiracles show, as they never do 
in Tac/tina." In the present in- 
stance, however, the puparia, as 
shown in the figure, were much 
more nearly uniformly roanded 
at the ends than is customary 
with Sarcopliaga, and the ])ro thoracic spiracles were represented by the 
most insignificant tubercles. 

August 28, or five days after entering the pupa state, two flies emerged^ 
and August 29 the other four issued. Thej^ showed the characteristic 
plumed antennal bristles of the Sarcophagidae, but differed in wing vena- 
tion from any specimens of Sarcophagidae or Tachiniidae which I have 
seen. In general appearance these flies much resemble the sarraceniae, 
but are rather smaller. The six specimens bred differ among themselves 
strangely in regard to the width of the space between the eyes, as in 
three of them it equals one-third the width of the head, and in the others 
it is the merest line. 

It is impossible to say from the experience had with them whether this 




208 EEPORT UPON COTTON INSECTS. 

parasite is common or not, though from the number of chrysalides de- 
stroyed by the larvae reared it will x)rove a very useful one if common. 

Figure 48 represents the insect in all stages ; a is the egg, natural 
size ; h is the egg enlarged 5 c is the full grown larva ; d is the head of 
the larva enlarged; e is the puparium ; and/ the adult insect. 
Phora aletiae: 

August 12, 1879, a large number of small white maggots were found 
in chrysalides sent from INIinters, Ala. These maggots, which appeared 
nearly full gTown, were about 0.15 inch (4™™) in length ; they were rather 
slender, the 9th segment being the broadest. The posterior end of the 
body was large and rounded, and the anterior end tapered gradually to 
a point. 

Examination with a lens showed that each segment was armed later- 
ally with four short, stout spines (two on each side), and the iiosterior 
end of the body was furnished with six. August IG these larvae com- 
menced to pui)ate. The puparium was light brown in color, 1""" by 
2nim jjj gJ2e. The front side showed the joining of the segments, and 
was somewhat rugose; the back side was smooth; the posterior end 
was rounded and armed with the same six small spines that were present 
in the larva; the anterior end of the body was more pointed. From 
about the third thoracic segment two long black excnrved spines pro- 
truded, which iiresented the most characteristic feature of the puparium. 
The perfect flies began to issue in great numbers August 27, or about 
ten days from the time of commencing to pupate. They proved to be 
active little yellowish-brown two-winged flies, with robust bodies and 
short, stout wings. They are well represented at Fig. 49, as also are 
the larva and pupa. 

It was at first thought that these larvae would not prove to be truly 
parasitic, but that they were to be found only in those cotton- worm chrys- 
alides which were already dead from some other cause and decaying. 
Still a doubt remained, and in pursuit of other facts, Mr. Trelense, from 
whom the specimens had been received, was addressed. He replied as 
follows : 

With regard to these flies, I may state that I have seen them in abundance in all 
of my jars — covered with gauze — in which I have reared larvae of cither Aletia or 
Helioihis, being found there while the specimens oi Aletia and HeJioihis Avero larvae, 
and were, as I supposed, attracted by the leaves and bolls put in for the latter to feed 
upon. I would account for their presence among my pupae [meaniug the pupae which 
he had sent to the department and from which the flies had been bred] by saying that 
they were there to feed upon the leaves in which the latter were iu closed; but if they 
have been hrcd from the pupae, I have nothing more to say. I find them in the field 
about the pupae of Aletia, and had siipposed that they might sometimes feed upon 
the little fluid left in the pupa shins after the exclusion of the moth, since they con- 
gregate in these empty skins. 

Among a lot of cotton-worm chrysalides received August 28 were 
many which were in aU stages of demolition from being devoured by 
these Pliora larvae. Some specimens contained fifty or more. As Mr. 
Trelease collected only those pupae for transmission which were still 



PHOKA ALETIAE. 209 

alive or appeared parasitized, we may consider this as good proof of the 
true parasitic habits of the species. 

With the determination of the species as belonging to the genus 
Phora, however, all doubt as to its parasitic habits was lost, as many 
species of the genus are known to be parasitic upon other insects. The 
most celebrated species, perhaps, is P. incrassata of Europe, concerning 
the habits of which we quote the following from an article by Dr. Pack- 
ard in the American Katuralist for 1868 : 

An insect allied to the Tachina has been found in Europe to be the most formidable 
foe of the hive-bee, sometimes producing the well-known disease called "foul-brood," 
which is analogous to the typhus fever of man. 

This fly, belonging to the genus Phora, is a small insect about one line and half 
long, and found in Europe during the summer and autumn, flying slowly about flow- 
ers and windows and in the vicinity of bee-hives. Its white, transparent larva is cylin- 
drical, a little pointed before, but broader behind. The head is small and rounded with 
short three-jointed annten.Te, and at the posterior end of the body are several slende» 
spines. The inqmrium, or pupa-case, inclosing the delicate chrysalis, is oval, consist- 
ing of eight segments, flattened above, and with two large sjiines near the head and 
four on the extremity of the body. 

When impelled by instinct to provide for the continuance of its species, the Phora 
enters the bee-hive and gains admission to a cell, when it bores with its ovipositor 
through the skin of the bee larva, laying its long oval egg in a horizontal position 
just under the skin. The embryo of the Plwra is already well developed, so that in 
•three hours after the egg is inserted in the body of its unsuspecting and helpless host 
the embryo is nearly ready to hatch. In about two hours more it actually breaks off 
the larger end of the egg-shell, and at once begins to eat the fatty tissues of its victim, 
its posterior half still remai ning in the shell. In an hour more it leaves the egg 
entirely and buries itself completely in the fatty portion of the young bee. 

The maggot moults three times. In twelve hours after the last molt it turns 
around with its head toward the posterior end of the body of its host, and in another 
twelve hours, having become full-fed, it bores through the skin of the young, eats its 
way through the broad covering of the cell, and falls to the bottom of the hive, when 
it changes to a puj^a in the dust and dirt, or else it creeps out of the door and trans- 
forms in the earth. Twelve days after the fly appears. 

The young bee, emaciated and enfeebled by the attacks of its ravenous parasite, 
dies, and its decaying body fills the bottom of the cell with a slimy foul-smelling 
mass, called "foul-brood." This gives rise to a miasma which jioisons the neighbor- 
ing brood, until the contagion (for the disease is analogous to typhus, jail, or ship 
fever) spreads through the whole hive, unless promptly checked by removing the 
cause and thoroughly cleansing the hive. 

Foul-brood sometimes attacks our American hives, and, though the cause may not 
be known, yet from the hints given above we hope to have the history of our species 
of Phora cleared up, should our disease be found to be sometimes due to the attacks of 
such a i^arasite fly. 

Mr. Edward Burgess informs me, after comparing specimens of the 
Phora bred from Aletiay^iih. the types in the Cambridge collection, that 
this is probably a new species. I will therefore provisionally designate 
it as Phora aletiae, and submit the following description to accompany 
the figures : 

Phoka alktiae, n. sp. 

L4r.VA. — Length of mature larva about 3.6"^™. ; tapers gradually from the 9th seg- 
ment towards the head ; color milk-white ; Ijody very mnch wrinkled, the whole 
surfape sparsely beset with short, backward-directed teeth, which aro most consijic- 
14 CI 



210 



EEPOKT UPON COTTON INSECTS. 





Tious and quite numerous at and near the lateral edge ; antennae short, 2-jointed, Ist 
joint very short and thick, the 2d scarcely one-half the diameter of the Ist, slightly 
conical and rounded at tip ; the 1st thoracic segment hears 6 quite long, pointed 
tubercles, arranged in a curve around its lateral and front margin ; the stigmata are 
upon short processes, and, are ijlaced close together near the middle of the segment ; 
all other segments, except the two last, have on each side one quite long, slender 
tubercle, somewhat posterior to the middle, and, in a transverse row dorsally, 4 short, 
fleshy, conical tubercles and a somewhat longer one ventrally near the lateral edge, 

a little in front of the lateral 
one ; the 12th segment has its 
spiracles, which are situated 
near its center, prolonged into 
rather long, fleshy tubercles; 
this segment bears on each side 
two tubercles, one at the ante- 
rior and the other at the pos- 
terior angle ; the last segment 
is furnished with 4 tubercles, 
one on each of the posterior 
angles and two near the center 
of its posterior margin, the two 
lateral ones longest. 

Pupa. — Length 2.8""" ; color 
light brown ; the whole surface 
Fir,. 49.— Phora aletiae. is covered with small roundish 

granules, which are the remnants of the tooth-like processes which were noticed 
on the larva ; from the 1st abdominal segment the body tapers rapidly to the head; 
the 1st abdominal segment bears dorsally, near its front margin, two very conspicuous 
black horns, slightly directed backward; the lower two-thirds of each horn is 
nearly straight, and the last third is curved gently outward; it is thickest at its 
base, and becomes slightly thinner towards its apex; all the lateral tubercles and the 
last pair of spiracles are very much reduced in size in comparison with the correspond- 
ing ones in the larva, the tubercles of the last segment, however, remaining of nearly 
the same size ; the dorsal portion, between the horns and the last pair of spiracles, is 
greatly convex, the lateral margin being flattened; it is traversed in nearly equal dis- 
tances by 4 prominent, rounded, double ridges ; each of the 2 posterior ridges, which 
are somewhat broader and higher than the front ones, bear 4 round warts, which are 
the remnants of the dorsal tubercles of the larva, and the last pair of spiracles is situ- 
ated on a rounded elevation; the ventral portion is slightly rounded and without any 
particular markings. 

Imago. — Female: Length of body, 2.3'"™; front of head dark yellow, beset with 
Ifi stiff, black, spiue-like haii's; eyes black, coarsely faceted, covered with minute 
black hairs, and edged posteriorly with some longer spines; antenuaj 5-jointed; 1st 
joint very much swollen, almost globular, and very hairy; the next 3 joints are very 
small, all three together not longer than the 1st, having only about one-fifteenth of the 
diameter of the 1st ; the 2d and 3d are about equal in length ; the 4th is a little shorter ; 
all ; are slightly thinner towards the base, beset with fine hair ; the 2d joint is inserted 
on the upper side at about the middle of the outer margin of the 1st segment ; the 5th 
joint, or bristle, is very long and delicate, and is closely beset with short, spine-like 
hairs; the labium, when extended, is quite long and fleshy, and seems to be composed 
of 4 pieces or lobes ; the basal piece is somewhat narrower than the 2d, which broadens 
at its middle; the 3d piece is somewhat smaller than the 2d, straight posteriorly and 
gently rounding towards the apex; the last piece is very minute and knob-like; the 
labium is sparsely beset with quite long hairs ; the maxillarj^ palpi are 2-joiuted, the 1st 
very short, scarcely noticeable, the 2d very long, petiolated,with its apical half broadened 



SUMMARY. 211 

into an oval pad, curved inward, and beset on its outer edge ■with five or six barbed spines ; 
thorax dark yellow, covered with small black hairs, which give it a slightly dusky 
appearance ; a few long black spines are arranged around base of wings and sides 
of the thorax; abdomen dusky; venter yellowish, dusky towards the end; the 1st 
segment dorsally has near its base a very narrow transverse black baud; the poste- 
rior margin is yellow ; on the 2d segment is a very broad, nearly rectangular, trans- 
verse black patch, which leaves only a narrow yellow margin posteriorly ; the 3d 
and 4th have each a somewhat squarish black spot, reaching from front to hind mar- 
gin, having its sides somewhat concave ; the spot on the 3d segment is nearly divided 
from the front to its posterior margin by a triangular yellow center, which is broadest 
in front; the 4th has only a very small triangular spot at its front margin ; (in the 
darker specimens this black spot is surrounded by a narrow yellow line which is not 
noticeable in the lighter ones) ; the 5th and 6th segments have each a somewhat 
squarish, transverse, black spot, and both spots of these segments are divided only by 
a very small, transverse, yellow spot ; there are a very few short hairs at the incisures 
between the segments dorsally and ventrally ; the body is quite smooth when distended 
with eggs, but soon after a few of the eggs are deposited becomes much wrinkled 
longitudinally ; the ovipositor, when fully extended, is seen to be composed of 5 joints, 
and is then about one-third the length of the abdomen ; joints 2 and 4 are quite hairy, 
and also the small terminal joint ; joints 1 and 3 are smooth ; legs yellow, profusely 
beset with quite long black hairs ; there are a few long spines around the apex of coxae 
of all the legs ; the femora of all the legs, especially of the 3d pair, are very much 
swollen at their middle ; the tibiae of the 2d pair of legs do not reach the ba«e of 
femora when folded, but those of the last pair are as long as the femora ; the tibiae 
of 2d and 3d pair of legs are furnished at the front of their tips with three spurs, one 
largo and two small ones; the large spur of the middle tibite stands between the two 
smaller ones, and the one of the last tibiae stands on the outside of the tip, just below 
the outer small spur ; the large spur of middle legs is nearly twice as long as that of 
the last tibiae ; the tarsal joints of front legs are without spurs, but those of the other 
two pairs are furnished at their tips with two short spurs and are lined, besides these 
terminal spurs, on their front sides, with two rows of similar spines or spurs ; wings, 
faint ly yellowish, beset with extremely minute hairs ; the costa is provided with a 
double row of long and acute spines, and the remaining portion of the margin, except 
a short piece near the inner side of basis, with extremely minute cilia ; this basal j)or- 
tion is furnished also with 7 or 8 spines similar to those of the costa ; rims, yellowish ; 
halteres 3-jointed, the last joint oblong oval. 

Male: The male is about one-third the size of the female. There are scarcely any 
distinguishable differences between it and the female, except that in the male the 
dorsal portion of the abdomen is entirely blackish. 

From present indications, this insect bids fair to be one of the most 
important, as it is one of the most interesting, of the parasites of the 
cotton-worm. 

IMPORTANCE OP THE NATUBAX. ENEMIES OF THE COTTON-WORM — 

SUMMARY. 

From a perusal of this chapter it is doubtful if the reader has obtained 
a very definite idea of the actual amount of good performed by the nat- 
ural enemies of the cotton-worm, except that it is by no means insignifi- 
cant. It would, indeed, be a difficult task to estimate the number of 
cotton-worms, in one stage or another, that are destroyed every year by 
the diiierent birds and insects ; but we will bring together in this sum- 
mary such points as relate to the amount of good performed, hoiking to 
set the importance of the subject forth in a more definite light. 



212 REPORT UPON COTTON INSECTS. 

Among tlie vertebrate enemies, it wOl be of interest in tliis connection 
to be able to form an idea of the actual number of insects destroyed by 
the average insectivorous bird. As concise a statement of facts upon 
this point as we have met with is given in Professor Aughey's report to 
the United States Entomological Commission, from which we have already 
quoted in the early i)art of this chapter.* Professor Aughey says : 

Few unobservant people have any comprehension of the vast number of insects that 
birds actually destroy. During the breeding-season this destruction of insects by birds 
reached its culmination. The young of some species ■will eat about 50, others about 
60, some about 75 insects each day. The average cannot be far from 60. At this rate 
five young bii'ds would eat about 300 iusec^B each day, or about 9,000 a month for each 
month, exclusive of the parents. There have been widely dili'erent estimates as to tho 
number of insects that the old birds eat, but it ought not to be difficult to approximate 
the quantity. Only a small part of a bird's stomach is entire enough to be distin- 
guished and counted. If the balance is composed as largely of insects, which is more 
than probable, then the whole number eaten during a day by an insectivorous bird 
must be near 200. I reached the same conclusion by actual tests. In the fall of 1874 
I bought two Bartramian plovers from some boys who had trapped them, and kept them 
for a Aveek in a cage before they were set free. I fed them on locusts and other insects, 
which I counted for four days with the following result : 

First day 277 

Second day 452 

Third day 448 

Fourth day 439 

Total 1,616 

Average per day 404 

Average for each 202 

I was compelled to go away or else tho experiment would have been continued 
longer. 

About one-fourth of the insects were locusts, and the balance were flies, ants, beetles, 
&c. I gave them whatever insects the boys that I hired gathered for me. My im- 
pression, however, is that they ate less than they would have done if they had been 
at liberty. But, lest there might be some mistake, and to avoid all possibility of error 
on the wrong side, we will base our calculations on an estimate of 150 insects each day 
for a mature plover. At this rate 20 old plovers would eat 3,000 insects each day, or 
90,000 a month. And suppose further that these 20 plovers had nests which averaged 
four young ones each. At 60 insects a day for each young plover the 40 would con- 
sume 2,400 every twenty-four hours, or 72,000 a mouth. The 20 plovers and their 
progeny together would consume 162,000 insects each month. At this same rate 1,000 
l)lovers and their young would consume in one month 8,100,000 insects. That many 
insects removed in one year from a farm of 160 acres would probably render it capable 
of producing crops even when these insects were doing their worst. As there are many 
birds that eat more insects than do the plovers, as well as many that eat less, 150 in- 
sects a day is probably a fair average for all insectivorous birds. 

This extract is eloquent as a defense of birds and puts us on a sound 
basis of apparently unexaggerated facts. Too much, then, can hardly 
be said in favor of insectivorous birds in cotton-fields. We have entered 
into the English-sparrow question somewhat at length. Every day brings 
confirmatory evidence in support of the conclusions at which we have 

* First annual report of the United States Entomological Commission, 1877. Rocky 
Mountain Locust, Department Interior. 1878. 



SUMMARY. 213 

arrived. Eeports have reached us of the attempted colonization of this 
bird in parts of the cotton-growiug regions of Texas. The persons who 
carried this phin out did not learn from experience of the bad habits of 
the sparrow for the simple reason that he would not stay. In a very- 
short time after their importation in considerable numbers hardly a spar- 
row was to be found in the State. Persons interested in the experiment 
believed that the climate was too warm, and suggested as the only means 
of bird relief the importation of some South American sparrow, of sim- 
ilar habits. We very much doubt, however, if any bird could be intro- 
duced which would prove a greater blessing than any one of many birds 
indigenous to the cotton States, if equally encouraged. 

With the exception of the ants, predaceous insects are hardly to be 
compared either to the birds or to the parasitic insects in regard to the 
number of cotton- worms which they destroy. True, the capacity of some 
of them is great, but they either labor under disadvantages (such as being 
comparatively confined to the ground, as the carabid beetles) or are not 
sufficiently numerous to do a very great amount of good. Still it is well 
to know them and not destroy them, as thousands of worms are destroyed 
by them, and it is only in a comparative way that we speak at all dep- 
recatiugly of them. The capacity of the rear-horses {Mantis Carolina) 
has been shown by the statement that one individual has in one night 
killed and devoured eleven Colorado potato-beetles, and we have men- 
tioned the fact that a young specimen of the wheel-bug {Prionotus cris- 
tatus [Reduvius 7iovenari7is] ) has been known to destroy ten caterpillars 
in five hours, thus showing the amount of good which may be done by the 
hemipterous enemies of the cotton- worm. The destructive powers of the 
asilus-flies have been shown from Mr. Thompson's statement that he has 
known one individual to destroy 141 bees in a day. The work of ants 
in this direction has been discussed at length, and they are shown to be 
the most valuable of the xiredaceous insect enemies of the cotton- worm. 

The destruction of the cotton -worms by their true parasites is a sub- 
ject ui)on which interesting experiments may be made. The extent of 
parasitism will undoubtedly vary much with the season of the year, the 
last brood always seeming to be much more extensively" parasitized than 
any of the preceding broods. The probabilities are that they increase 
with the increasing numbers of the worms, and that they also are afiected 
to a certain extent by the character of the season, although not com- 
parably with the ants. From August 12 to August 28, 1721 pupae, 
probably belonging to the fourth brood, were received at the depart- 
ment from Mr. Trelease at Minters, Dallas County, Alabama, for the pur- 
pose of ascertaining the extent of the parasitism. The i-osult hardly 
justified the anticipation. From this lot of 1,721 chrysalides there is- 
sued in all 1,455 moths, and from the remaining 206 chrysalides w^ere 
bred the following parasites: Of Chalcis ovata, Say, 32 specimens; of 
TacJiina aletiae, Eiley, 3 specimens ; Of Sarcophaga sp., 7 specimens ; 
of Finipla anulipes, Br., 1 siiecimen j of Tacldna sp ., 2 specimens ; of 



214 EEPORT UPON COTTON INSECTS. 

Bidictyum zigzag sp., 32 specimens ; of the small Dipteron Phora aletiae, 
a verj^ great number of specimens ; making 'altogether of the large 
I)arasites 44:, each singly from a chrysalis, and 120 chrysalides destroyed 
b^' the small parasites, making a total of 104 out of 1,721, or between 9 
and 10 per cent. The remaining 102 died from some unknown cause. 
This percentage is small, but in the last brood it would unoubtedly 
be greater. 

The extravagant ideas of Dr. Gorham on the subject of the extent of 
parasitism are easily accounted for. He collected his specimen chrysa- 
lides for observation late in the fall, after the hibernating moths had 
issued. Naturally, no apparently sound chrysalides were left excepting 
those containing parasites. These he collected, and parasites issued 
from all; hence his conclusions. A little note from one of Professor 
Willet's letters seems to indicate the greater abundance of parasites 
in the last brood than in the earlier ones. He collected a number of 
newly-formed chrysalides in November. Of these he says : 

About two dozeu were placed iu a box iu my sitting-room, expecting to h.atcli out 
some moths for exposure. The following is the result : In some two weeks two moths 
came out; they seemed delicate, and one lived only two days, the other four or live. 
No other moths have appeared (December 11). November 24, 1 found four ichneumon 
flies {rimpla conqiihitor) out in one boll ; December 2, one more, and December 7 an- 
other; the sixth, the last, with no ovipositor (a male). Iu breaking open the dried 
chrysalides I destroyed two pupae of parasites. These make eight parasites in some 
two dozeu chrysalides — a large proportion. I had 75 chrysalides in a box in summer ; 
about 50 came out moths ; most of the others could not escai)6 from and perished iu 
the dried leaves. I saw not a parasite of any kiud. 

An encouraging statement concerning the extensive parasitism of an 
early brood (the third) is contained in a letter from Mr. Trelease of July 
24, 1879. He stated that at that time nearly one-half of the half-grown 
worms in the fields under his observation bore the eggs of one of the 
Tachina parasites. One-half is certainly a large proportion, but he re- 
iterates it with exactness in his notes, and stands ready to vouch for it. 
It seems not at all unlikely when we consider the numbers in which the 
northern species of Tachina occui" in fields ravaged by the northern army- 
worm. In a field which was black with these worms I have searched 
for hours without finding a single unparasitized full-grown worm. Nine 
hundred and ninety-nine out of a thousand bore the white eggs of the 
destroj'er. 

These few poiuts will bo sufiicient, perhaps, to give a more accurate 
idea of the importance of the natural enemies. 



CHAPTEEYII. 

REMEDIES. 

The most careful and extended experiments on remedies fortlie ravages 
of the cotton-worm which have been carried on under the direction of 
this department are those conducted by Mr. Trelease during the present 
year (1879). These experiments were i^erformed under especially favor- 
able conditions. Mr. Trelease was located upon a plantation in the 
southern part of Dallas County, Alabama, a locality in which cotton- 
worms are especially destructive 5 he made arrangements by which he 
could call into service all the help on the place if necessary. In this way 
he was able to use the remedies on a large scale, and to carefully com- 
pare the results obtained by different methods. A neighboring planta- 
tion upon which no efforts were made to protect the cotton served also 
for comparison. 

As we shall have occasion to refer to these experiments frequently iu 
the course of this chapter, we give here that part of Mr. Trelease's re- 
port relating to them. 

EEPOET OF EXPERIMENTS BY MR. TRELEASE. 

To prevent the caterpillar from materially injuring the cotton crop, 
various devices have been proposed. These may be considered as pre- 
ventives or remedies ; the first getting the crop in such a condition that 
the worms cannot barm it, the second protecting the crop by killing the 
caterpillars. 

In most sections the first four broods of larvae do no harm to cotton, 
on elevated dry soil, while the fifth brood does not appear till late in 
August or even in September. This has led some planters to contend 
that by highly fertilizing their land they can force the crop to early ma- 
turity, so that when the worms appear it will have stopped " making." 
and the removal of the leaves will then be a decided advantage by allow- 
ing the sunlight to reach the lower bolls, thus jireventing them from 
rotting, as they sometimes do if too much shaded. But in practice it 
appears that land which, if unfertilized, i)roduces small cotton, making 
little after the early x)art of August, will, if fertilized and suitably culti- 
vated, grow large plants that continue to grow until checked by cold 
weather. While, therefore, fertilizing the land increases the cotton made 
up to the middle of August, it also leaves the plants in a vigorous, 
growing condition at the time when the worms ajipear, so that it is then 
desirable to use some remedy. 

With a view to having their cotton through making when the worms 
appear, others leave two or even three plants where commonly only one 
is left, believing that early in the season each plant will grow and fruit 

215 



216 KEPORT UPON COTTON INSECTS. 

as well as if it stood alone, tlie lack of sufiQcieut nutriment cliecking 
their growth only late in summer. Their argument is, it is better to get 
an early crop on three plants than to rely on an early and middle crop 
on one plant, when the top crop is likely to be destroyed by the worms. 
Though it is an error to suppose that it is only late in the season that 
these plants sufler from an insuflBcient supply of food, yet I am inclined 
to believe that on the lands where uo fertilizer is used this is a good 
practice. 

Another expedient is the selection of a variety of cotton that the 
worms will not eat ; and it is possible that such a variety may some 
day be produced. Small quantities of a variety known as worm and 
nest proof are grown on several plantations not far from Elm Bluff, Ala., 
and I had the opportunity of examining some of the plants early in 
September. They were growing on dry, rather i)Oor soil, were of some- 
thing less than the average size, but quite prolific. The green parts of 
the plant were deeply tinged with red, and this color was quite noticea- 
ble in the corolla. On this cotton I found living Aletia eggs, as well as 
spots where small caterpillars had eaten transparent places in the 
leaves, and quite large holes eaten through the leaf by large ones. No 
worms were found on the plant, having probably been removed by either 
ants or chickens, for the cotton was growing in a door-yard garden. 

With a view to rendering the cotton distasteful to the caterpillar, if 
possible, quassia chips were steeped and soaked in water for about a 
week and a half, one pound of chips being lised for each gallon of water. 
This decoction was then diluted, from a pint to a quart of it being added 
to each bucketful of water (2 gallons), and applied with a fountain 
pump to infested cotton, so that every leaf was thoroughly wet. . In this 
form the infusion was intensely bitter and imparted a strong taste to 
the cotton leaves after the water had evaporated ; but though several 
applications were made I could not see that it interfered with the feed- 
ing of the worms. 

What I have called remedies may be conveniently divided into two 

classes, natural and artificial ; and these may be further subdivided as 

shown in the following table : 

,„,,,. i a. Animal. 

I. Natural remedies J ft. Vegetable. 

^ ^1. Poisoned baits. 

I c. For moths ^2. Lights and fires. 

II. Artificial remedies . ^ ^. ^ Hand-picking. 

I (1.. For larvae ^2. Crushing by machines. 

(^ (o. Poisoning. 

By natural remedies I wish to indicate the breeding and protection 
of all natural enemies of the species, whatever their nature. Those be- 
longing to the animal kingdom may be found specified in that part of 
my report relating to the natural enemies of Aletia. In addition to 
those mentioned there might be included all insectivorous birds. The 



FUNGOID DISEASES VS. COTTON-WORMS. 217 

European pparrow feeding extensively on insects, some planters believe 
that it would make a stronj]f enemy of the caterpillar if introduced ; but 
from what I know of its nature, and from what others who have studied 
its habits tell me, I believe it impracticable to make it remain on a plan- 
tation, and, even if this could be accomplished, its grauivorous and 
quarrelsome propensities would make it a pest that the farmers would 
be only too glad to get rid of. All naMve insectivorous birds should be 
protected by law, and under no cii'cumstances should one of them be 
killed or its nest disturbed. 

Under the head of natural remedies belonging to the vegetable king- 
dom, I would place any fungi or molds that may be utilized for the 
destruction of Aletia in any of its forms, if such there be. In the latter 
part of July a copy of an article by Dr. Hagen on the use of fungi to 
destroy noxious insects, from the Canadian Entomologist, vol. xi, p. 110, 
was sent me from the department with instruction to test the matter 
carefully. I have not the article before me now, but from the belief of 
some mycologists that the fungus of the house-fly, the torulae of yeast 
or beer, and the common mold are forms of one and the same species, 
it was recommended that the insects to be destroyed should be showereil 
with dilute yeast, from which would be developed a fungus parasitic on 
the insects. And, whether the identity of the fungi mentioned were 
real or not, it was stated that the Continental mycologist. Dr. Bail, had 
demonstrated that yeast or beer torulae sown on insects gave rise to some 
fungus which caused their death. 

On the strength of this statement, and knowing that different species 
of insects sometimes die in large numbers from fungoid diseases, I tried 
the following experiments with yeast, with the results given. It should 
be stated that care was taken in every instance to see that the yeast 
was in an active state. 

August 1, during a light shower, I applied a gallon of yeast in eight 
gallons of water to cotton, on which there were many half-grown cater- 
pillars, as well as numbers of small ones, using a fountain-i^ump for dis- 
tributing the liquid, and being careful to reach all parts of the cotton 
with it, wetting it, indeed, so thoroughly that the air for some distance 
was pervaded by a yeasty odor. Before I had finished the shower be- 
came heavier, and it rained hard for a considerable part of the night. 
There was more or less rain nearly every day for the succeeding week. 
Examination every few days showed that no fungus was attacking the 
worms. 

August 7, I applied several gallons of water, in which was yeast in 
proportions varying from one-half pint to one quart to the gallon of 
water. This was applied in the morning while the sun was shining 
brightly, and no rain fell on it until night, though more or less rain fell 
every day for the next half week. There were worms of all sizes where 
this was used, but none were attacked by disease. 

August 13, more was applied in varying quantities of water, the day 
being cloudy, but only negative results were obtained. 



218 REPORT UPON COTTON INSECTS. 

September 9, after sunset another gallon of yeast in four gallons of 
water was applied to cotton covered with young larvae and eggs, but 
with no result, so far as I could see. 

It will be seen that the first of these exi^eriments was tried during a 
rain, which endured for some time, so that the yeast may have been 
washed from the leaves and from the caterpillars before having an op- 
portunity to act; but if any of it adhered the damp weather following 
was most favorable to its development into the parasitic form. The 
second was tried when the sun was shining early in the morning, so that 
it was exposed to sunlight for the greater part of one day, and could 
not have been removed by rain till the following night. Like the former, 
this was subjected to damp weather for a number of days. The third 
lot was applied in the early part of a cloudy afternoon, and this was 
subjected to rains the next night and for several days. The fourth lot 
was applied after sunset, and there was no rain on it for three days. 
Moreover, these quantities of yeast were so applied as to wet eggs, larvae, 
and pui)ae of Aletia. Other applications were made on a small scale at 
different times, but with similar results. 

From these experiments it appears that under the most varied circum- 
stances, many of which are very favorable to the growth of fungi, yeast 
in an active condition failed to produce any fungoid disease on either 
the egQ:s, larvae, or pupae of Aletia. Furthermore, larvae contained in a 
tin box were drenched with yeast, being kept thoroughly wet for over 
twenty-four hours, after which a part of the liquid was drained out, and 
the box remaining uncleaned, the larvae were kept and fed in it for a 
week longer, at the end of which time they were still living and appar- 
ently suffering from no disease. This leads me to believe that though 
the PenicilUuni or Aspergillus developed from torulae sometimes attack 
living animal tissues, they cannot be utilized for the destruction of the 
cotton caterpillar. Yet, considering to what an extent some insects 
suffer from fungoid diseases, it seems by no means improbable that some 
practical and economical method of parasitizing noxious insects may 
some day be discovered. 

Since the perfect form or moth of Aletia is known to feed upon 
sugared substances and fruits, and since if is known to be attracted by 
light to a certain extent, it lias been thought possible to destroy the 
moth by allowing it to feed on poisoned sweets, or by employing the 
food or lights to attract it into traps of various sorts. 

As will be seen by referring to my report on the food of these moths, 
they are attracted in large numbers by ripe apples, peaches, and grapes, 
beside one or two other less common fruits, but I signally failed to at- 
tract them to my mixtures of molasses or sugar and various substances. 
Though no experiments on a large scale were conducted, I feel coulident 
that poisoned dishes of ripened and slightly fermenting fruits Avhich 
have been bruised, may be advantageously employed for the destiuc- 
tion of these moths, by placing them about the cotton-fields when the 



DESTRUCTION OF THE MOTHS. 219 

moths are flying. I would recommend that this be tried, especially on 
warm days in winter, wlieu the moths are allured from their hibernac- 
ula ; in the early spring, and in the fall, after the brood which destroys 
the cotton have emerged as moths. 

From what has been said in the earlier agricultural reports, and from 
the testimony of j)lauters as to the attraction of lights for these moths, 
I had supposed that the easiest and most scientific method of destroying 
Aletia was to employ fires into which they should be attracted, or lights 
in combination with some form of trap, either with or without the added 
attraction of food, these to be used whenever the moths were flying, and 
their use enforced, if necessary, by legislation. Considering, for the 
above reasons, that the fondness of these moths for light was proved, 
I made no efforts to obtain personal demonstration of the fact, and it 
was only on learning how many species of moths and even of other in- 
sects may pass for Aletia with the ordinary observer, and on seeing from 
my notes how little attention was paid to the light of my lantern, that I 
began to doubt the efficacy of this remedy ; but this, unfortunately, was 
after I had left the field. As it is, I can only say that the number at- 
tracted to lights, as compared with the entire number, was very small, 
so far as my experience goes. Though I saw a few dozen attracted into 
the house, thousands were in sight of the light and removed but a few 
rods ; while for each of those thus attracted a dozen individuals, belong- 
ing to other species, came to the light. My own observation, then, goes 
to show that these moths are not attracted to any great extent by lights, 
but if this attraction should be proven to be considerable this would 
prove one of the best ways of dealing with the pest. 

In the destruction of some noxious insects, especially those injurious 
to the vegetables of the kitchen garden, hand-picking is found very 
elficacious, and this has been suggested as a means of destroying the 
cotton-caterpillar. Where it can be properly done, this is undoubtedly 
a certain remedy ; but for cotton as ordinarily grown it is impracticable 
for several reasons : 1. Its great cost ; 2. The impossibility of getting 
over the plantation before parts of it should be eaten out ; 3. The fact 
that labor is almost invariably needed to house fodder at the time when 
, this would have to be done, and could not well be spared for this work. 

Various machines have been patented for either shaking the cater- 
pillars from the plant or by disturbing them, causing them to leap from 
it voluntarily, after which they are crushed by some contrivance. Though 
I have not seen these machines, I feel doubtful of their value for the reason 
that driving a vehicle of any sort through very high cotton which has 
locked across the rows is certain to injure it more or less, and the extent 
of tlie injury will depend ui)on the rajiidity of driving and the amount 
of concussion which the plants receive, any severe jolting causing the 
bolls to fly off. From their very nature these machines must cause more 
or less of this jarring, and I believe that to be true of any machine in- 
tended to shake the worms from the plant. 



220 



EEPORT UPON COTTON INSECTS. 



In the present state of our knowledge it seems that the most effectual 
means of destroying the cotton-caterpillar is by the use of poisons, 
either in the moist or dry condition. In the former case, the poisonous 
substance is dissolved or suspended in water ; in the latter, it is mixed 
with flour, gyj)sum, or other innocuous i)Owder, which serves to dilute 
it, and in some cases to aid it in adhering to the plant. The ground 
covered by my experiments with poisons may be seen from tJie follow- 
ing tables : 

I. — To TEST THE EFFICACY OF THE SUBSTANCES. 



^ {a) London purple, suspended in water. 

(b) Gray arsenic, suspended in water. 

(c) Paris green, suspended in water. 

(d) Texas worm-destroyer, dissolved in water. 
(6-) Gray arsenic, in Fowler's solution. 
( /') Oil of turpentine, in water. 
{(/) Kerosene, in water. 
{k) Carbolic acid, in water, 

^ («) London purple, in Royall's mixture.* 
■^ {b) Gray arsenic, in RoyalFs mixture. 
( (c) Paris green, in Royall's mixture. 



A._Wet. < 



B.-Bry. 



II. — To TEST THE ADHESION OF THE SUBSTANCES. 



A.— Wet. 



B.— Dry. < 



j («) Poisons suspended in water without flour-paste. 
( (b) Poisons suspended in water with flour-j)aste. 
r {a) Poisons mixed with flour. 
{b) Poisons mixed with flour and gypsum. 

(c) Poisons mixed with flour and rosin. 

(d) Poisons mixed with flour and dextrine. 

(e) Poisons mixed with flour, rosin, and dextrine.t 
(/) Poisons mixed with flour, gypsum, and rosin. 
{(/) Poisons mixed with flour, gypsum, and dextrine. 
{h) Poisons mixed Avith flour, gypsum, rosin, and dextrine. 
{i) Poisons mixed with gypsmn, rosin, and dextrine. 
(/>•) Poisons mixed with gypsum and rosin. 
{1} Poisons mixed with gypsum and dextrine, 
(wi) Poisons mixed with gypsum. 

All of my wet poisons were applied by use of Whitman's fountain- 
pump, No. 2. Where small quantities were used, one man carried a 2- 
gallon water-bucket, and another preceded him, working the pump. 

* Royall's patent : Flour, one barrel, 196 pounds; Paris green, 9 pounds; dextrine, 
10 pounds ; rosin, 12 pounds. 

The ingredients being in a fine j)owder, arc sifted to remove lumps, after which they 
are thoroughly mixed. Other poisons may be substituted for Paxis green. 

t Ibid. 



EELATIVE VALUE OF POISONS. 221 

Where larger quantities were used, a 40-g'allou barrel was placed in a 
four-wheeled wagon with wheels 5 feet apart, and the lowest axle 23 
inches from the ground. This was drawn by two mules, being made to 
straddle one row of cotton, the mules walking in the furrows that the 
wheels ran in. One man drove the wagon, and two others, provided 
with fountain-pumps, distributed the poison contained in the barrel, 
wetting nine rows for each trip across the field. Meantime, one or two 
other men, with a two-horse wagon, containing several smaller barrels, 
were engaged in carrying water from a pond to the ends of the rows of 
cotton, where it was transferred to the distributing wagon. With these 
two pumps worked slowly, the mules walking very slowly, we found that 
a barrel of water went over about three acres of cotton, wetting it 
fairly, but not so well as was to be desired. The men were therefore 
made to work the pumps faster, so that a barrel lasted for two acres. 
Not satisfied with this, we erdarged the holes in the rose-nozzle a little, 
so that without materially diminishing the force of the pumj) we were 
able to apply a barrel of fluid to the acre.* In this way about 30 acres 
a day may be poisoned by four hands and four mules. 

My dry i)oisons were applied by a sieve made of a 2-quart tin bucket, 
the bottom of which was replaced by perforated tin, and which was 
provided with a socket at the side for the insertion of a wooden handle 
about three feet long. 

My exx)eriments with dry poisons were not extensive enough for me 
to determine accurately the amount of labor required to poison an acre ; 
but Mr. Lide, the manager of George O. Baker's plantation at Selma, 
Ala., tells me that a hand can poison from one to two acres of cotton per 
day. He tells me, further, that one barrel of Eoyall's mixture goes over 
about three acres. 

Before giving details of the experiments, I may briefly state the con- 
clusions to which they led me, as follows : As an insecticide I prefer 
Paris green to any other substance used, and find it less likely to injure 
the cotton than any other. Next to this, I should place commercial 
areenic (arsenious oxide, As2 O3), though this is more likely to scorch 
the cotton than the preceding. I should place London purple next in 
the list, as being less valuable as a poison and more liable to injure the 
cotton. Fowler's solution of arsenic (arsenious oxide dissolved in a solu- 
tion of sodium or potassium carbonate in water) serves fairly as an in- 
secticide, but my experience is that it is very liable to injure the cotton, 
probably owing to the alkaline nature of the solution. A considerable 
quantity of the mixture known as the Texas Cotton- Worm Destroyer 
was used, the directions accompanying the package being followed ; but 
1 failed to obtain satisfactory results from its use in any trial. Oil of 
tui-pentine, kerosene, and carbolic acid in water were applied but when 
api)lied so as to kill the caterpillars I found that they always injured the 
plant. 

* It is far better to employ the larger size of liump, which, from its greater capacity, 
distributes more water than the one used by me, and with less labor. 



222 



EEPOET UPON COTTON INSECTS. 



The cheapest mode of applying the poisons is undoubtedly in the wet 
form ; and I find that they adhere as well when suspended in pure water 
as when paste is used, though this aids in their suspension. Whenever 
a solid is used in suspension, frequent stirring is needed to keep it evenly 
distributed through the water. In Eoyall's patent the flour is sup- 
posed to act as a diluent ; the rosin, to melt by the heat of the sun and 
thus affix the poison to the leaves of the plant ; the dextrine, to melt and 
gum the poison to the leaves under the action of water, either as dew or 
rain. My experiments showed me that flour alone adhered nearly as 
long as this mixture ; and even that it might be replaced in part by gyp- 
sum or land plaster, but that gypsum alone, or replacing all of the flour 
in Eoyall's patent, was removed by the first rain as a general thing. 
The reason for this is that the first dew converts the flour into a paste, 
which becomes attached to the leaf, and considerable rain is needed to 
dissolve and remove it. I find that one pound of Paris green, applied 
in forty gallons of water to an acre of cotton, will kill the worms to a 
certainty without injuring the cotton to any appreciable extent, pro- 
vided there is no rain on it for several days ; but the dry poison, using 
about twice as much Paris green to the acre, is equally certain and safe, 
and will withstand far more rain, even if merely mixed with flour. Ow- 
ing to the cost of the flour, however, and the greater cost of applying it, 
the dry poison is far more exi)ensive than the wet. 

A. — WET POISONS. 

August 7, nine barrels of water were applied, going over about three 
acres to the barrel. The time spent was from 9 a. m. to sunset, and the 
first rain fell at about nine o'clock the next morning. The substances 
used, their quantities, and the number of dead worms just before the 
rain began are shown by the following table : 

I. — JJet poisons applied August 7, 1879. 



Number of barrels. 


Name of poison. 


Quantity of 
poison. 


Quantity of 
paste. 


Dead worms. 


1 


Texas -worm-clestroyer . . 


Measure 




None. 


2 


in ounces 

21 ounces 

21 ounces 

20 ounces 

10 ounces 

20 ounces 


1 gallon... 
1 gallon... 
1 gallon... 
1 gallon... 
1 gallon... 
li gallons. 


Very few. 


3 




Do. 


4 




Tew. 


5 


London piirplo 


Very few. 


c 




Do. 


7 




Do. 


8 


Texas ■worni-destrover . . 
do 


Very few or none. 


g 


1 measure .... 




Do. 













Eains occurred nearly every day for about a week after this was ap- 
plied. On the 9th of August I found no dead worms, and examination 
with a lens showed very little poison on the leaves ; nor was the cotton 
scorched except in one or two places where the poison was a little thicker 
than usual ; but vines of the cow-pea growing in the field were considera- 
bly injured. The caterpillars continuing to eat, we again poisoned this 
cotton on the 11th, 12th, and 13th of August. ' 



EXPERIMENTS WITH WET POISONS. 



223 



In the following table the quantity of poison per barrel of water is 
given, but in some sections several barrels were used : 



Date. 



All" 



"1 



Name of poison. 



Aus. 12 
Aug. 13 



Paris ffreen 

London purple 

Gray arsenic 

Paris green 

Texas worm-destroyer 



Quantity o f 
poison per 
barrel. 



24 ounces 
10 ounces 
20 ounces 
24 ounces 
1 measure 



Quantity of 
paste per 
barrel.* 



2 gallons -- 
2 gallons.. 
2 gallons.. 
2 gallons.. 



Lengtb of time 
before rain. 



Dead worms 
after 24 hours. 



<Afairnumber. 
•54 hours average <Sonie. 
1 <Few. 

30hours average. Many. 
12hoursaverage Scarcely any. 



*Tn all of my experiments where paste was used it was made by boiling wheat-flour in water, so aa 
to be a trifle thicker than the starch commonly used for stifiening linen articles. Some farmers, to 
avoid the labor of boiling the paste, allow flour to ferment in water, obtaining a very good article in this 
way. In either case it should be strained through muslin. Mr. Patrick Calahan, of Selma, merely stirs 
two pounds of common starch in a bucketful of cold water, which is then added to 40 gallons of water 
containing the poison. 

When applying the poisons to sections 10 to 14, inclusive, we used 
two mules to draw the distributing wagon, in which were the driv^er 
and two hands with pumps. Another hand, with a two-mule wagon, 
was engaged in drawing water from a pond to the ends of the cotton 
rows, where it was transferred to the other wagon. Owing to the low 
specific gravity of London purple, the bulk of a pound of it is far greater 
than that of an equal bulk of arsenic or Paris green, and the hands com- 
plained that it pumped out harder than either of the other poisons 
named. Certain it is, that, other conditions being about the same, a 
barrel went over three acres in section 11, while in 12, 13, and 14 it went 
over only two. On section 10 the pumps were worked less rapidly, so that 
a barrel of water went over three acres. Twenty-four hours after each 
section was poisoned I examined it to see what effect the poison had. 
produced on the worms and cotton, and leaves plucked here and there 
were examined with a lens to discover how thoroughly the finely divided 
poison was applied. There was a considerable number of worms dead 
on section 10, and most of the others died before the first rainfall. The 
Paris green could be seen in very fine particles in the minute hollows 
everywhere on the surface of the leaf. The cotton plant was not in the 
least injured. On section 11 the percentage of dead worms after twenty- 
four hours was considerably less than on 10, but before the rain fell the 
greater part of the others were dead. The poison appeared as a fine 
purple bloom on the surface of the leaf, and in a good many places the 
leaves were scorched seriously. The arsenic used on section 12 did not 
scorch the cotton, nor did it kill many worms at first, but later it 
destroyed a good number. By far the best results were obtained on 
section 13, where the worms were quickly and thoroughly killed, and 
only at long intervals could a scorched leaf be found. Though the Texas 
worm-destroyer, used on section 14, was applied according to directions, 
it being stated that more than one measure, about 4^ ounces to the 



224 



REPORT UPON COTTON INSECTS. 



barrel of water, would injure the cotton, it killed remarkably few 
caterpillars. 

A light but steady rain fell all of the night following August 13, con- 
tinuing through the next day and night and a part of the 15th. An 
examination of the cotton after this rain showed that little iioison was 
then adhering to the leaves. In all of my experiments I found that full 
grown caterpillars never ate the poison, but webbed up immediately 
after it was applied. These excepted, there were few living worms on 
any of these sections excepting 11 where I could not see that the poison 
had done any good. On the 21st of August most of the foliage had 
been eaten from this section, while little was removed from the adjoin- 
ing section 13. When I comi)ared section 12 with the unpoisoued cotton 
on a neighboring plantation — from which it was separated only by a 
ditch — at this latter date, I could see that the arsenic had done good, 
for the cotton was not nearly- so badly eaten where the poison was used 
as just across the ditch, and at the time of poisoning it was infested 
worse than the other. 

Much of this cotton was as high as the top of the wagon-box, and 
there was none that was not bent as the axle passed over it ; yet I found 
that very little damage was done by driving down the rows, though oc- 
casionally bolls were jolted off, and now and then the driver ran the 
wheels on a row so as to injure it, but this was the result of careless- 
ness. Unless cotton is very high and closely interlocked between the 
rows I should not hesitate to drive a large-wheel wagon over it if 
necessary in ])oisoning. 

August 29, live sections were poisoned as shown in the following table. 
But one pump was used, the nozzle of which had been reamed so as to 
discharge a larger quantity of water for a given expenditure of labor. 
"With this we were able to distribute 10 gallons of water per acre. As 
before, one man drove and another hauled water to the side of the field. 



Date. 


ik 


Xamc of poison. 


Quantity of poison 
per barrel. 


Quantity of paste 
per baiTcl. 


Lcngtli of time 
before rain. 


o 

C3 

° 'i 

s 

o 
P 




r i"- 

10 

■^ I'' 

18 
I 10 




16 ounces . 


4 gallons . . 




Few. 






^481ionrs<! 


Scarce any. 
Few. 

Scarce any. 
Very few. 


Aug. 29, 1870 


London purple 

Texas worm destroyer 

London pui-ple 


IC ounces . 
1 mea.sure. 
8 ounces . . 


4 gallons . . 




2 gallons . . 



* As2 03., 384 grains. K2 CO3, 384 grains. H2 0., 3 quarts. 
In preparing Fowler's solution on a largo scale the potassium carbonate may be replaced by themucli 
cheaper sal-soda. As recommended by Capt. N. D. Cross, of Sclma, sal-soda and gray arsenic are taken 
iu equal propoitions by weight; the soda is dissolved in a little boiling water, the arsenic is then added, 
and, when dissolved, water is added in such quantity as to make one gallon of the solution for each 
ounce of arsenic used. He recommends the use of l-lj gallons of this normal solution for each barrel 
of water. 



EXPERIMENTS WITH WET POISONS. 



225 



With our single pump we were able to cover only five rows of cotton 
for each trip across the field and do it well. Including the time spent 
in filling the barrel it took 45 minutes for each barrel of poison put out; 
or, in ten hours, three hands and four mules would poison about 13 
acres. 

On the 1st of September a light rain in the early afternoon became 
heavier about 4 p. m. and lasted till some time in the night, a few driz- 
zling showers having fallen the day before. 

Wh^n these poisons were applied there were scarcely any worms on 
the cotton poisoned, but many eggs. On the 4th of September I noted 
that these had hatched, but few larvae had yet eaten through the leaves 
so as to reach such poison as the rains had left. Of the few worms on 
the cotton before the rain I had noticed a small number of dead ones, 
the most being found on section 17, the next on 15, the next on 16, but 
neither 18 nor 19 did much good. Coming as they did, the rains re- 
moved the greater part of the poison before the young worms could eat 
it, so that little good was done by this poisoning. 

September 5, some cotton badly infested with newly-hatched cater- 
pillars was poisoned, as follows : 









a 







f^ 


















































^ 




■*^ a 


ci . 








^0 


r^ ,^ 





m ro 


Date. 


d 
o 


Name of poison. 


1-1 

9 P* 


'2 ^ 


a 3 ■ 








C3 


3 





© 




m 




G* 


c 


h-l 


p 




( 20 






3 gallons . - 


] ^ 

^ 8 d.ays i 


Many. 




21 
< ''2 




16 ounces . 


Do. 


Sept. 5, 1879 . . 


do 




Do. 


93 




10 11. ozs .. 




Few. 




[ 24 




20 11 ozs . . 




J 1. 


Do. 













In all we poisoned a little less than 3 acres this time, using only about 
half a barrel on section 22. One hand worked the pump, wetting six 
rows at a time; another followed him with the bucket of poison. 
Previously I had caused a barrel in the middle of the field to be filled 
with water. In this I suspended the poison, having the men replenish 
it as often as necessary. About four gallons each of the kerosene and 
turpentine mixtures were used. 

The next day, when I examined the Paris-green sections, I found many 
worms dead on each of them. When I rubbed tlie leaves with my hand, 
or sprinkled water over them, I could not see but that one adhered as 
well as another. Here and there a leaf was badly scorched, and some few 
forms were injured ; but, taken as a whole the field sufiered little. Here 
I noticed what was also seen before and afterward, namely, that a leaf 
may be completely covered with Paris-green sediment and yet .show no 
scorchhig ; but where the dead spots appear on the leaves there may be 
15 CI 



226 



REPOET UPON COTTON INSECTS. 



little of the poison. Paris-green being- practically insoluble in water, 
I am unable to account for this. 

On the 8th of September I noted that the cotton on which Paris green 
was used three days before was uninjured by the worms, though a few 
were still eating, most of these having hatched after the poison was 
applied. But where I used kerosene or oil of turpentine the cotton was 
almost leafless, these substances having injured some of the leaves, and 
killed a considerable number of larvae, but not enough to save the crop. 

September 10, a number of gallons of water, containing from.a half 
teaspoouful to a teaspoonful of carbolic acid per gallon, were applied 
with the fountain pump. This water was stirred so that the acid was 
suspended through it as very small globules. It was found to kill some 
caterpillars, but by no means enough to save the cotton ; and, used in 
these proportions, it injured the cotton considerably. More water, con- 
taining kerosene and oil of turi)entine in var;ying quantities, was applied; 
but, like the last, I found that it did not effectually destroy the worms, 
even when strong enough to seriously injure the cotton. 

B. — DRY POISON. 

In the afternoon of August 22, I poisoned four sections with dry 
poisons, as shown in the annexed table. Where flour was used with 
either rosin or dextrine, or both, the i)roportion was that used in Royall's 
l)atent. Where gypsum was used, it replaced the flour, bulk for bulk, in 
this series. 



JDnte. 


1 


Xamc of poison. 


ri 
y. 

S 


a 

*^ a 

o o 

■2=2 

1 


i 

tj CO 


to 

'K . 

5.9 
n 2 

& 


Aug. 22,1879 


r 
1 

2 

3 
4 


London purple 

Paris green 


C Flour ~t 

< Dextrine > 

( Rosin ) 

C Flour ... \ 

< Dextrine > 

(Rosin ) 

Flour 

Gypsum . . . 


■ hours . . • 


1 
Fair . . . 

Good... 

Fair . . . 
Good... 


Fair quantity. 

Do. 
Do. 






Very little. 













As will be seen from examining this table, a rain began falling before 
we had linished applying the poisons. This rain continued to Ml all 
night, all of the next day, and part of the succeeding night. Another 
heavy rain occurred the next night. On the 2(3th, I found that the 
cotton of sections 1 and 3 was scorched considerably, far more than 
either 2 or 4. The second section had killed the most worms. I could 
not see but what section 3 adhered as well as either 1 or 2, and all were 
far better than 4. 

August 2G, four additional sections were poisoned ; the only variation 



EXPERIMENTS WITH pRY POISONS. 



227 



from Eoyall's mixture being in omitting some ingredient, substituting 
gypsum, bulk for bulk, for flour, or varying the quantity of poison. 



Date. 


a 

.2 

1 


Name of poison. 


Substances mixed 
with. 


a . 

c t< 


o 

a 
'■3 a 

° ? 
►3 


a 
a o 

o 


OS 




5 

6 

7 
8 




C Flour ....•> 

< Dextrine > 

( Kosin ) 

I Flour ^ 

< Dextrine. > 

( Ilosiu ) 

C Plaster . . S 

< Dextrine. > 

( Rosin ) 

Flour 


12. 5 pounds. 

9. pounds 1 

12. 5 pounds . 
9. pounds. 


-120 hours ■ 


Good.... 

...do .... 

...do .... 
...do .... 


Much. 

Do. 

Little. 
Much. 


Aug. 26, 1879 


Paris {rrecn 

London purple 

Paris green 



When these poisons were applied in the afternoon, the sun was shining 
brightly. The mixture with plaster was scattered more easily than 
those with flour, and distributed itself very evenly over the leaves. On 
the 31st of August a few drizzling showers fell, and there were more 
on the next day, scarcely any falling during the succeeding night, and 
a very little the following morning. August 28, after two clear days 
and dewy nights, I found all of these poisons adhering well; though the 
flour, by forming a sort of paste, had collected into blotches, while the 
plaster remained as evenly distributed over the leaf as ever. On the 
2d of September, I noted that the cotton of section 5 was somewhat 
scorched. Section 6 was scorched very little. Though section 7 was in 
great part removed, it had scorched the cotton considerably ; more than 
either of the other sections. V.ery few leaves were injured on section 8. 
This same day, I found that a very little of section 1 still adhered, and 
the cotton was little injured. A little was also found on section 2, where 
the cotton was very little hurt. Section 3 seemed to adhere as well as 
the preceding, but had scorched the cotton more. Section 4 had scorched 
the cotton little, but no traces of the poison were left. 

September 2, two other sections were poisoned, using one part of flour 
by weight to two parts of gypsum in place of an equal bulk of flour in 
Royall's patent. 



Date. 



Sept. 2,1879 



ITame of poison. 



Paris green 

London purple 



f Flour .... 1 
J Gypsum . 1 
1 Dextrine, f 
I Rosin. ...J 

( Flour f 

< Dextrine . > 
( Rosin ) 



r- 



18 pounds*.. 
9 pounds . . - 



1 r 

[ 11 days..-] 
.1 I 



Good. 
...do. 



S^ 



* By a mistake the quantities of rosin, dextrine, and Paris green ■were intended for twice the bulk of 
fiouT and plaster used. 



228 



REPORT UPON COTTON INSECTS. 



At the time these poisons were applied this cotton was beginning to 
be honeycombed by the cateri)inars ; but none large enough to eat 
through the leaves were to be found on the adjoining sections 5, 6, 7, 
and 8. Between 8 and 9 a small section was left unpoisoned, and this 
was defoliated within the next five days, while all of these sections re- 
tained their foliage up to the time when I left the field, September 15. 

September 4, I noted that the cotton on section 10 was badly scorched, 
though the worms were Idlled on it. The poison was as thickly applied 
on 9 as on 10, yet, despite the double quantity of poison used, it was in- 
jured very little. The caterpillars were killed. Very little poison re- 
mained on sections 1, 2, and 3, of August 22, yet in a very few places 
there was enough to kill the worms that were then appeariug in large 
numbers on it. None remained on section 4, the foliage of which was, 
for the most part, eaten up. 

September 7, the poison was found adhering finely to sections 5 and 
6, and the cotton was not at all badly scorched. There were very few 
worms on it. Xo traces of the poison on section 7 could be found, but 
there were no worms on it, and it was not materially injured by scorch- 
ing. Not very much remained on section 8, but there were few cater- 
pillars to be found. The cotton was uninjured. The poison adhered in 
quantity to 9 and 10, where the worms were all dead. Section 9 was 
slightly scorched, section 10 badly. The unpoisoned section before 
mentioned was covered with caterpillars, its foliage being entirely gone. 

September 9, about midday, when the sun was shining brightly, I ap- 
plied poisons to three sections to test the resistance of different sub- 
stances to the action of the weather. The quantity and quality of the 
poison being unimportant, I shall give only the proportions of the sub- 
stances used to dilute it. 



Date. 


1 


o 
o 


C3 

ft 

O 
-.^ 

.s 
'3 


.9 

o 
u 

o 
1 


Weight of dex- 
trine. 


Length of time 
before rain. 


.a 
is 

a 

3 

c 


Sept. 9,1879 


] 12 
1 13 


4 ounces . . . 

6 ounces 

2 ounces . . . 


24 ounces . . . 
24 ounces . . . 
24 ouucea . . . 


1 ounce 


1 ounce 


> 4 days < 


Some. 
Do. 


1 ounce 


1 ounce 


Much. 



September 14, I noted that my sections up to jSTo. 11 were about as 
before the rain. Of 11, 12, and 13, all were more or less removed, and 
strangely enough the last, containing the smallest quantity of flour, 
had resisted the rain better than either of the others. None of these 
stood it as well as most of the earlier sections which had already been 
exijosed to numerous rains. Owing to my departure from the field at 
this time these later experiments are exceedingly unsatisfactory, and I 
hesitate to base a very pronounced opinion on them, but think that they 
go to demonstrate that plaster, unless accompanied by a large quantity 



MACHINES FOR DISTRIBUTING POISONS. 229 

of flour, will not do to api)ly poisons with unless it is absolutely certain 
that no rain will fall till they shall have time to kill the caterpillars they 
are intended to destroy. 

In applying poisons it is desirable, if possible, to employ machines by 
which they may be more rapidly distributed. For, as the time when 
poisoning must be done, all of the regular plantation-hands ought to be 
engaged in saving fodder or picking cotton, day-hands are doing this 
work for themselves, and, aside from the mere question of cost, it is 
often impossible to get over a plantation in time to meet the worms on 
their emergence from the egg without exposing some of the x)oison to 
the danger of being removed by rain. This is especially true of dry 
poisons, for if applied by hand they require far more time per acre than 
hquids do. Moreover, on their emergence from the egg the larvae do 
not eat entirely through the leaf, but spend from two to four days on 
the lower surface ; therefore, as suggested to me by Professor Comstock, 
it is desirable to apply the poisons to the lower surface of the leaf, so 
that they may be killed without so long an exposure of the poison to 
chances of being removed by rain. Since the moths feed on the nectar 
secreted by the glands on the lower surface of the leaf, it may also be 
possible to apply some soluble poison to this surface, some of which 
being absorbed by the nectar will poison the moths. 

Aside from these reasons, I do not see why any machines should apply 
liquid poisons better or more expeditiously than can be done by the 
fountain pumps. A machine whi(;h fills these requirements is that in- 
vented by William T. Daughtrey, of Selma, which throws a linely divided 
spray up through the leaves ; this in its descent wetting the upper sur- 
face. In its present form this machine is intended to be drawn by two 
mules, poisoning four rows of cotton; but it is entirely impracticable to 
use it as now made. Mr. Daughtrey, however, soon expects to have a 
lighter and more manageable machine, drawn by one mule and poison- 
ing as many rows as the machine he now has. Having seen his jet I 
see nothing further to be desired in that line, and when combined with 
a properly constructed body it seems likely to meet every want. I have, 
though, grave doubts as to any machines proving superior to the foun- 
tain pump, when everything is taken into consideration. 

The slowness and expense of applying dry poisons, on the other hand, 
make it desirable to employ some machine if possible. Such machines 
have been devised and patented ; but, as I saw none of them in opera- 
tion, it is unecessary for me to speak of them. 

With some machine dohig away ^vith the greater part of the labor 
otherwise required, I think that, in spite of its greater original cost, 
the dry form of poison is far preferable to the wet, on account of its 
greater adhesiveness. 

Starting on a certain part of every plantation, as they do, the cater- 
pillars may be watched as they increase in numbers. My advice would 
be that as soon as they appear in any numbers in such places— probably 



230 EEPOET UPON COTTON INSECTS. 

tlie first crop or third brood — these places, of a few acres iu extent, 
should be thoroughly poisoned. The next brood radiating from these 
centers may be iu great part destroyed by poisoning a slightly greater 
area; and the third crop will thus be greatlj' dimiuished, and may itself 
be destroyed by poisoning generally over the plantation, the signal for 
poisoning being the abundance of eggs, some of which are beginning 
to hatch. Could such a system be followed by every person raising- 
cotton, I feel certain that it would be very few years before the cotton 
caterpillar would cease to be the pest that it now is. 

[End of Mr. Treleaso's report.] 
PREVENTIVE MEASURES. 

The most important of the preventive measures which can be adopted 
is the encouragement of the natural enemies of the cotton-worm. De- 
tailed accounts of tliese have been given in a previous chapter; hence, 
but little remains to be said here. 

The most practicable thing which can be done in this direction is the 
protection by law of all the native insectivorous birds. An incalculable 
amount of injury has been done by the indiscriminate destruction of birds 
by the frcedmen since the close of the war. In addition to the protec- 
tion of the native species, others might be introduced. But here very 
great care must be exercised, else more harm than good may be accom- 
plished. No species should be introduced the habits of which are not thor- 
oughly understood. ^Ye wish to call particular attention to this point, as 
many planters have urged us to aid in the introduction into the cotton 
States of the English sparrow, a species the importation of which into 
the Northern States has been pronounced a calamity by nearly all of the 
American ornithologists. 

The encouragement of the insect enemies of the cotton-worm, though 
less practicable than the i)rotectiou of birds, is not less important; for this 
reason, great care has been taken to figure and describe all the predaceous 
or parasitic insects which destroy the cotton- worm. It would be worth, 
the while of every planter to become familiar with the appearance of 
the more common of these, and instruct his hands not to injure them. In 
those cases in which hand-picking of the pupae of Aletia is employed, 
much good can be done by taking care not to destroy the parasites con- 
tained in them. The pupae, when collected, instead of being destroyed 
should be^ placed iu barrels or boxes covered with coarse wire gauze or 
other netting. In this way the parasites which emerge from the pupae 
can be allowed to escape through the meshes of the netting, and are thus 
enabled to go on with their destruction of the pest ; whereas, the moths 
which mature, being larger, cannot escape, and perish iu their prison. 
Some idea of the importance of this precaution may be gathered from 
the results of an experiment already cited, in which it was found that of 
1,721 pupae of the fourth brood, nearly ten per cent, were parasitized. 
Or what is more to our purpose, there were bred from these pupae 44 
large parasites {Plmjpla, Chalcis, and Tac/a«a), and an immense number of 



COLLECTING LARVAE BY HAND. 231 

small parasitic flies belonging to the genus Phora. It must be remem- 
bered that the later broods of Aletia cani'Mu a larger percentage of para- 
sitized individuals. 

Under this head will come also the suggestion of Mr. Nicholas A. 
Davis, of Jacksonville, Tex., who recommends not plowing the cotton 
lields while they are yet wet, and also advises planters not to plant cot- 
ton on wet land where ants do not live. 

As another preventive measure, would it not be well to plant less cot- 
ton and cultivate more thoroughly, using fertilizers I In this way more 
cotton would be made early in the season, before the worms increase suffi- 
cieutly to injure it, and then, with smaller fields to go over, the force 
upon a plantation would be sufficient to api;)ly remedies in season to 
keep the worms in check. 

DESTErCTION OF EGGS. 

Many attempts have been made to destroy the cotton-worm in the 
^.g^ state. These have been accompanied with but little success. Ow- 
ing to the fact that the tender terminal leaves are first destroyed by the 
worms, planters have believed the eggs were laid upon this part of the 
plant. This belief has suggested the idea that by cutting off and de- 
stroying the terminal shoots the eggs would be removed. But as shown 
in the chapter in natural history, the greater part of the eggs is laid on 
the lower surface of the larger leaves of the middle third of the plant ; 
hence by topping the cotton onlj' those worms which hai^pen to be on 
that part of the plant would be destroyed. 

Owing to their small size, and the position in which the eggs are de- 
posited, any attempt to destroy the insect in this state will prove imprac- 
ticable. And the destruction of the few larvae which are removed with 
the terminal shoots, does not pay for the labor of topping the cotton, 
especially as the entire cotton can be poisoned with less labor. 

COLLECTING LAKVAE BY HAND. 

Although it may seem a hopeless task to preserve a field of cotton by 
collecting the larvae by hand, we feel that very much can be done in 
this way if the effort is made at the proper season. It would be a waste 
of labor to attempt to destroy in this way the individuals of the third 
crop of worms. Not so, however, in case of the first brood. This ap- 
pears in such small numbers that by careful searching a very large pro- 
portion of them could be found. This, ot course, would materially lessen 
the numbers of the subsequent broods. As early as the middle of May 
the cotton fields should be thoroughly searched; at this time the cotton 
plants are small, therefore, this could be done with comparatively little 
labor. Much could be accomplished by instructing the hands to care- 
fully collect all larvae and folded leaves containing i)upae found while 
working the cotton early in the season. We believe, however, that in- 



232 REPORT UPON COTTON INSECTS. 

structions of this kind could only be made to produce tbe maximum 
results by offering a reward for every specimen captured before a certain 
date, say June 1 ; a smaller reward miglit then be offered for each spec- 
imen between that time and some subsequent date. We have no doubt 
that were each planter to expend a small sum in this way greater returns 
would be realized than could be obtained by the expenditure ujion the 
crop of a like sum any other way. And we are inclined to believe that 
even in case where concerted action cannot be obtained good results 
will follow individual efforts. For, although the summer and autumn 
broods of moths migrate to great distances, there is reason to believe 
that the hibernating individuals and those of the early broods do not do 
so to any great extent. As evideuce of this we cite tbe fact that con- 
siderable time elapses between the ai)pearance of the worms in those 
localities which we have designated as centers of hibernation and in the 
more northern parts of the cotton belt. 

DESTRUCTION OF LARVAE BY POISONS. 

Arsenic and its compounds. — The only remedies which are now used to 
any great extent are poisons applied to the plant for the destruction of 
the larvae, and, almost without exception, these poisons are either 
arsenic or some compound of that mineral. The compounds of arsenic 
used to the greatest extent are Paris-green, Texas Cotton- Worm 
Destroyer, and, during the iiresent season, London purple. 

Very great difference of opinion exists among planters with regard to 
the relative value of these substances. This difference of opinion is not 
only as to their relative efficacy as insecticides, but also as to their effect 
upon the plants. Thus, although Paris green costs from six to ten times 
as much as white arsenic, many planters prefer to use the former simi)ly 
because there is less danger of injuring the cotton i)lants. With a 
view to settling these points, I planned the experiments conducted by 
Mr. Trelease, a report of which has just been given, and on going over 
carefully the testimony of plantcfs which I collected while in the field 
last year, and the answers of our correspondents, which are given in 
Appendix II (answers to question 7 i), I find tnat the experience of the 
majority confirms the results of these experiments in indicating that 
Paris green is the most desirable insecticide. It seems to act more 
speedily than the other iioisons, and if used carefully, no appreciable 
injury will result to the plants ; whereas, with arsenic and tbe other 
compounds of this mineral with which we experimented, it is difficult to 
apply a sufficient quantity to effectually destroy the worms without in- 
juring the plants. We feel sure that the unfavorable results which have 
followed in some instances from the use of Paris green have arisen from 
one of the following causes, either an excessive use of the substance or 
the use of an adulterated article, chiefly the latter. From the tiials 
which we have made, we are inclined to doubt that there is any danger 
of scorching the cotton if pure Paris green be used in the usual way^, 



LONDON PURPLE. 233 

whereas we have no doubt that very serious consequences have followed 
the use of an adulterated article. 

We have endeavored to find some simple method by which any planter 
could test for himself the purity of Paris-green. The following, although 
it does not meet all requirements, will be found useful. Pure Paris 
green is soluble in ammonia ; hence, if you take 100 grains of Paris 
green and place it in a glass vessel and add one ounce of liquid ammonia 
(it may require more than one ounce if the ammonia be not strong), 
and stir it for a minute or two with a glass or wooden rod, the Paris 
green will completly dissolve, forming a beautiful blue transparent solu- 
tion. Should there be sediment it will indicate that the Paris green is 
adulterated ; and the amount of sediment will show the amount of adid- 
teration. This test will serve to detect the presence of any of the 
substances ordinarily used for adulteration of this poison. Sometimes, 
however, white arsenic is used for this purpose, and as this siibstance is 
also soluble in ammonia its presence cannot be detected in this way. 
By using the above test, however, the planter can be certain that the 
compound in question will be efl&cient as an insecticide. There remains 
only the danger of his cotton being injured by the caustic action of 
adulterating arsenic. The best jjlau is to buy the iioison directly of the 
manufacturer. In this case, if care is taken to deal only with reliable 
firms, little danger need be ajipreheuded. 

It is proper to state that although our exiDeriments with the Texas 
Cotton -Worm Destroyer as well as those conducted by some of our cor- 
respondents in Alabama failed to produce satisfactory results ; many 
stroug recommendations of this remedy have been received from west- 
ern portions of the cotton belt, especially Texas ; and in the circular 
published by Preston and Eobira are recommendations from many 
l)rominent planters. An analysis shows that this remedy is an arseni- 
ate of sodium, which is almost entirely soluble in water. Of course its 
value as an insecticide is due to the arsenic which it contains ; its only 
advantage over other compounds of arsenic is its sobibility in water, 
and we are inclined to believe that this advantage is more than counter- 
balanced by the fact that there is greater danger of injury to the plant 
from a solution of this kind than by a mere mechanical mixture with 
water. This ijoint is illustrated by an experiment tried with Fowler's 
solution. 

As to the results of the experiments with London purj^le, we are dis- 
appointed. We had hoped, owing to the cheapness with which it can 
be furnished, that it would prove a substitute for Paris green, but our 
experience indicates that it is even less desirable than commercial arse- 
nic. We hesitate, however, to give a decided opinion with only the re- 
sults of a single season's trial before us, esiiecially as we have favorable 
reports from Prof. C. C. Bessey, of the Iowa State Agricultural College, 
who has experimented with it as a remedy for the potato beetle, and 
from Mr. A. K. Whitney, of Franklin Grove, 111., who has successfully 



234 REPORT UPON COTTON INSECTS. 

emi)loyed it ag-ainst the canker-worm on fruit trees, and prefers it to 
either Paris green or arsenic for that purpose. Still, it should be re- 
membered that the foliage of cotton being tender, is scorched much 
more easily than that of some other plants, and also, that a substance 
may kill certain insects quickly while it acts much more slowly upon 
others. Loudon jiurple consists chiefly of arseniate of lime, together 
with considerable aniline purple, and a little imijurity. As it is a waste 
product in the manufacture of various salts of rose aniline, its compo- 
sition is not constant. A sample which was analyzed by Dr. Collier 
shows the following composition : 

Per cent. 

Rose aniline 12. 46 

Arsenic acid 43. 65 

Lime 21.82 

Insoluble residue 14. iS? 

Iron oxide 1. 16 

Water 2.27 

Loss 4. 07 

100. 00 

A compound of arsenious acid and cyanide of potassium has been 
used to a considerable extent in Texas. It is known as Johnson's Dead 
Shot. It was patented June 2, 1874. The following extract from the 
specifications describes the compound : 

In order to form my compound I use the following ingredients, and preferably in 
the following proportions, to wit : Eight ounces of arsenious acid, one ounce of cyanide 
of potassium, and eight ounces of dextrine, dissolved in forty gallons of water. 

Arsenious acid, when applied to the leaves of cotton or other plants in the form of 
spray, will remain free from evaporation for a sufticient length of time to be eaten by 
such insects as feed upon cotton or other plants. Cyanide of potassium, when applied 
in like manner as a component jiart, might be termed the base of said compound, and 
serves to hold the arsenious acid in solution before it is conveyed to the plant, and, 
being among the most deadly of all insect poisons, it not only kills when eaten, but 
is death to insects the instant it strikes them, aud so impregnates the air immediately 
around the i)lant upon which it has been deposited that the fly or miller whicrh creates 
the cotton- worm is instantly killed on coming in contact with, or in the immediate 
vicinity of, the same ; aud, being a powerful alkali, is easily absorbed by vegetation, 
and acts as a tonic or fertilizer, thus entirely neutralizing the evil or damaging effects 
of the arsenious ingredient upon both land and plant. Dextrine, one of the component 
parts of my compound, has no j)oisonous effect, but is simply used to produce a thin 
mncilage of my other ingredients, sufficient to hold the said compound on the plant 
to which it may be aihninistered. 

1^0 experiments were tried with this compound. We have no doubt, 
however, that it is effectual as an insecticide ; but we would hesitate to 
recommend the use of a volatile poison so deadly" as cyanide of potas- 
sium. 

Objections to the use of arsenic and its compounds. — Much has been writ- _ 
ten respecting the dangers attending the use of arsenical poisons as in- ■ 
secticides. We do not here refer to the caustic action of the poison 
upon the leaves of the plant, but to the injuries which may result to man 



i 



OBJECTIONS TO THE USE OF ARSENIC. 235 

from the incautious liandliug of SO deadly a poison; to animak by drink- 
ing water from vessels in wliich it has been mixed, and by tfrinking 
from streams flowing through cotton-fields thus treated, and espec- 
ially to the danger of the poison accumulating in the soil to such an ex- 
tent as to exert an injurious influence on the iflant. When we consider 
the immense quantity of this poison which has been used during the 
last few years, and the low grade of intelligence of the majority of the 
field-hands who have been required to ai)ply it, especially in the cotton 
States, it seems as if a great risk of loss of life had been incurred ; statis- 
tics, however, fail to confirm such conclusions. We occasionally read in 
the newspapers accounts of serious results following the use of poisons as 
insecticides, but no well authenticated case has come to our notice. Al- 
though, doubtless, there is danger with the usual care, the risk is not 
greater than that of railway or steamship travel or many other practices 
which are necessary. 

These remarks will apply also to the dangers accruing to animals from 
this use of poison. For, although we are informed that the annual loss 
by Paris green of cows, sheep, and horses is something considerable, no 
instance has come under our j^ersonal observation. 

As to the accumulation of the arsenic in the soil, in sufficient quantity 
to prove injurious to plants, we cannot do better than to cite the inves- 
tigations of Dr. William McMurtrie.* These investigations show: 

That, tliougli arsenical compouuds exert au injurious influeuce upou vegetation, yet 
this is without effect until the quantity present reaches, for Paris green, about 900 
pounds per acre ; for arsenite of potassa, about 400 j)ouuds per acre. 

Thus, if all the arsenic were to remain in the soil no injurious effects 
need be expected to follow within one hundred years. And when we 
take into consideration the amount of arsenic which is removed from the 
soil by drainage, au even greater time may be expected to elapse before 
that event occurs. And we may reasonably expect that ere that time 
the science of economic entomology will be so far advanced that a harm- 
less substitute for arsenic will be known if there remains an occasion for 
its use against this enemy of the cotton plant. 

Carbolic acid. — Experiments conducted by Professor Willet and my- 
self last season with carbolic acid gave results similar to those obtained 
by Mr. Trelease. It was found in each case that where this substance 
was used in sufficient quantities to destroy the worms it injured the cot- 
ton plants greatly. 

Kerosene. — Although the different forms of coal-oil have been found 
to be very valuable in many instances as insecticides, all of our efforts 
to employ it against the cotton-worm have produced poor results. In 
every case when a mixture of kerosene and water of sufficient strength 
to destroy the worms has been ai)plied to cotton, the i)lants have been 
injured. ^^ 

The following experiment, suggested by the use made of kerosene 
* Annual Report of the Department of Agriculture, 1875, j)p. 144-147. 



236 EEPORT UPON COTTON INSECTS. 

against the Eocky Mountain locust, was tried : A quantity of kerosene 
was put into a pan; all that would flow was then poured out, leaving 
only a thin film over the bottom of the pan. A dozen cotton-worms were 
then put into the i)an. At the end of two minutes all were dead. But 
the danger of injury to the cotton-plant, and especially of knocking off 
the bolls by any machine emijlojed for jarring the worms from the plants 
into receptacles containing coal-oil, will jirevent the use of this substance 
in this way. 

Pyretlirum. — The value as an insecticide of powder made from the dried 
flower-heads of different species of Pj/re///r?/?«, and sold under the name of 
Persian Insect Powder, has long been known, but its expense has pre- 
vented its general use except for insects iufesting houses and parasites 
upon domestic animals. For the same reason, we neglected to experiment 
with it on the cotton-worms, believiug that, however eflicient it might 
be, its cost would prevent its use against insects infesting field crops. 
But there has been introduced into California a Dalmatian species of 
Fyretlirum {Pyrethrum cinerariccfolium,) from which a powder equally 
as good as the imported powder is made. And we have recently learned, 
what is equally important, that this powder can be produced at a price 
which will admit of its being used on field crops. The Califor/iian pow 
der is known as buhach. 

The most important peculiarity of powder made from Pyretlirum is 
that, although deadly to insects, it is harmless to man and domestic 
animals. The neglect to experiment with this powder upon the cotton- 
worms this season is not a serious matter, as it is not yet produced in 
this country in sufiicient quantities to admit of its taking the place of 
remedies we now have. We understand that arrangements have been 
made for growing the plants upon a large scale, and before the sub- 
stance can be put upon the market in large quantities the necessary 
experiments to determine its efliciency and the best mode of application 
will have been made.* 

MODES OF APPLYING POISONS. 

Second in importance only to the choosing of the most effectual poison 
is the adoption of the best mode of applying the remedy. Although 
manj^ methods have been adopted, they may be classified under two gen- 
eral heads: First, use of poisons diluted with water; second, use of 
poisons diluted with some dry substance. 

Before entering upon the discussion of these methods, I wish to urge 
the importance of making early preparations for poisoning. As yet most 
planters do not seem to realize that fighting the worms is a part of the 
necessary labor for raising a crop of cotton. As a rule no provision is 
made for this work in the way of purchase of poison or implements for 
ics distribution, or conveniencies for getting water, until the worms are 

* The Pyretlirum cinerariopfolium was introduced into California and is raised by Mr. 
G. N. Milco, of Stockton, Cal. 



PREPARATIONS FOR POISONING. 237 

injuring the crop so badly that it is evident that something must be done 
at once to save it. The result is that while the planter is engaged in the 
preliminary work which should have been done months before, the crop 
is destroyed. 

The following remark was made to me in almost the same words by 
the majority of the planters with whom I talked upon the subject : " The 
trouble about i)oisoning is, a man may have a large field, the worms ap- 
pear in it, and in three or four days the crop is destroyed before the 
poison can be applied." Another expression which I often heard, and 
which is equally suggestive of a lack of appreciation of the proper way 
in which to contend against this insect, is the following : "The first and 
second crops of worms do no harm ; it is not worth whUe to poison them ; 
it is the third crop that does the injury." 

The cotton- worm will continue to be a scourge until all who raise cot- 
ton, except perhaps those in the northern portions of the cotton belt, 
incorporate in their estimate of the cost of producing a crop the expense 
of poisoning the worms. The fact that in almost every section there 
are seasons during which the worms injure the cotton but little can al- 
most be considered a misfortune; for it is doubtless largely owing to 
this that proper preparations are not made. Influenced greatly by their 
hopes, the planters believe each s])ring that it is not going to be a "worm 
year." The result is that already described. It would be better to make 
unnecessary preparations than to suffer for want of proper precaution; 
especially as, if there is no occasion to use the materials the season they 
are purchased, they can be kept without loss or damage until there is 
occasion to use them. 

Doubtless in many cases one reason why the preliminary arrange- 
ments are not made at the proper time is the financial depression which 
has been so general throughout the South. Many planters find it neces- 
sary to borrow the money which is used in the cultivation of the crop, and 
under such circumstances do not feel willing to go to the expense of 
buying poison and machines for distributing it when there is a chance 
that they will not be needed, and in any case the interest on the invest- 
ment is to be met. Still we believe that under these circumstances the 
loss incurred by the laying idle of capital invested in this way ought to 
be regarded in the light of insurance. 

If the i^oisou to be used be purchased during the winter, there will be 
time to procure it directly from the manufacturers, thus saving consid- 
erable in cost, and, what is of much more importance, an unadulterated 
article can be obtained. Frequently those who wait until they need 
poison before buying it, and are thus forced to purchase of local dealers, 
pay from 20 to 75 per cent, more for an inferior article than an unadul- 
terated poison would have cost if bought directly of the manufacturer 
at a season when there is no great immediate demand for it. In a simi- 
lar way, in case dry poisons are to be used, doubtless many opportunities 
would occur for procuring flour at a less cost than it would be necessary 
to pay at the time it is to be used. 



238 REPORT UPON COTTON INSECTS. 

A very great saving of time may be accomplished by those who apply 
poisons with water by improving the facilities for getting it. The de- 
tails of this will vary with local conditions. We are led to speak of it 
from our observation in the cauebrake region of Alabama. Although 
this section is one of those which has suffered most from the cotton- 
worm, and at the same time one which is admirably adapted for i)rovid- 
ing supplies of water, little has been done in this direction. A large 
part of this region is supplied with artesian wells which bring the water 
several feet above the surface. Doubtless it would pay, in many cases, 
to sink wells in those parts of the plantation where water is most likely 
to be needed for poisoning ; at least tanks should be arranged at the 
existing wells so that barrels could be rapidly filled in time of need. 
This, however, is seldom done. In those sections in which cisterns are 
used instead of wells, it would pay to make one or more cisterns in each 
of the larger cotton-fields, and to see that they were properly filled dur- 
ing the rainy season. 

We wish also to urge prompt action in the use of poisons. We are 
convinced that it does not pay to wait for the third crop of worms before 
poisoning the cotton. The earliest brood in the spring should be de- 
stroyed. At this season it i>robably would be necessary to poison only 
the cotton growing on low land. Let those places in which the worms 
are known by tradition to appear first each season be eaiiy and thor- 
oughly poisoned. The expense of this poisoning need not be great, for 
not only are such areas of limited extent, but, as the plants are small, 
little poison will be required. It will probably pay best to use dry 
poisons early in the season, as but little flour will be needed on each 
plantation, thus doing away with one of the greatest objections to dry 
poisons. 

The poison should be first applied at a date not later than twenty 
days subsequent to that when the cotton first appears above ground. 
It will probably be found necessary, as the successive broods of worms 
appear, to poison larger and larger areas, until, with the third crop, all 
the cotton growing should be poisoned ; doubtless, however, it would 
frequently occur that only the rank-growing cotton would need to be 
poisoned even then. If concerted action were taken throughout any 
extended region in poisoning early in the season, we do not believe that 
the worms would be able to develop in sufBcient numbers to do any 
serious injury; at least, their progress might thus be retarded, so that 
the cotton would not be stripped until too late in the fall to do damage. 

Wet poisons. — The least expcmsive mode of applying poisons, and the 
one most generally adopted, is with water. When Paris green, arsenic, 
or London purple is used, it is necessary to stir frequently the water into 
which the poison is put, as none of these substances are soluble in water. 
In applying the mixture every leaf should be thoroughly wet, and the 
proportions used should be such as to distribute from twelve ounces to 



WHITMANS FOUNTAIN PUMP. 



239 



one pound of Paris green over an acre ; with the other poisons a smaller 
amount must be asetl, on account of the danger of scorching the cotton. 

When Paris green was first applied with water common watering-pots 
were used. A man mounted upon a mule carried the pot and sprinkled 
the plants as he rode along the rows. Other hands kept this one sup- 
plied with the mixture. This was found to be a very imperfect method, 
requiring, as it does, a great amount of water, which is a serious objec- 
tion when the water has to be drawn a considerable distance, as is 
usually the case. Moreover, by this method the poison is not evenly 
distributed ; the hand (almost invariably an ignorant and careless ne- 
gro, and, perhaps, half asleep) rides along and deluges some plants, 
while others are not wet at all. 

The most practical way of applying wet poisons that has come under 
our observation is by means of a machine known as the fountain-pump. 
This is a simple instrument, the form of which is shown in Fig. 50. 




Fig. 50. 



It consists of two brass tubes, one working telescopically within the 
other ; a hose is fastened to one end and a rose can be attached to the 
other; this rose is represented in the lower part of the figure; an ar- 
rangement of valves allows water to pass into the pump through the 
hose, but will not allow it to return. Thus, when the smaller tube is 
pulled out, the pump is filled to its greatest capacity ; by pushing this 
tube back, the water can be ejected with considerable force through the 
nose in a fine spray. In this way, with a single pump, a man can throw 
the poison overfive rows of cotton at once, walking rapidly along the rows. 
Thus five rows can be poisoned in about the same time that is required 
to poison one row with a watering-pot. In addition to the saving of 
time, much less water is used with the fountain-pump than is required 
with watering-pots ; and as the pumps throw a very fine spray, the poi- 
son can be more evenly distributed in this way. 

In using the fountain-pump, one man works the pump, another hand 
(often a woman) accompanies him and carries the bucket containing the 
mixture. Other hands keep these supplied with the poison. As some 
parts of the work are more tiresome than others, the hands are trans- 
ferred from one part to another at intervals. The water is conveyed to 
and about the fields as far as possible in wagons. 

It is estimated by those who have had much experience in applying 
poisons in this way, that where water is easily obtained, with one foun- 
tain-pump and eight hands (three of whom may be women) 25 acres of 



240 EEPOET UPON COTTON INSECTS. 

cotton may be poisoned in one day. The eight hands are distribnted as 
follows: One works the pump; one carries the bucket from which the 
Xwison is pumped; three supply tliis one with the mixture; three are 
with the wagon getting water and mixing the poison. 

Although the plan just described is the one most generally used, we 
think that adopted by Mr. Trelease during the present season is prefer- 
able, requiring as it does fewer hands. This method is illustrated in 
Fig. 51. 

A 40-gallon barrel containing the mixture is placed on an ordinary 
four-wheeled wagon, the wheels being 5 feet apart, and the lowest axle 
23 inches from the ground. The wagon is drawn by two mules, these 
walking in the furrows on either side of the row of cotton over which 
the wagon passes. One hand drives the team and two others, provided 
with fountain pumps, distribute the poison from the barrel. In this way 
nine rows of cotton are poisoned each trip across the field. In ordinary 
cases one or two other hands with a team can keep these supplied with 
water. By this method poison can be applied very rapidly and with a 
minimum number of hands. The experiments show that the cotton was 
not seriously injured by the team or wagon, although much of it was as 
high as the top of the wagon-box, and there was none that was not 
bent as the axle passed over it. Certainly the time and labor saved will, 
except in cases where the cotton is very high and closely interlocked 
between the rows, more than pay for the injury done to the cotton. I 
suggest the following improvement to the apparatus used this season : 
Have a cover fitted to the barrel to prevent the spilling of the poison. 
This cover should have three holes; one for a dasher (similar to that 
used in churns) for agitating the mixture; the two other holes to admit 
the hose of the pumps. The dasher may be worked by a boy or the men 
with the pumps. 

Although the method above described is the most practicable yet 
devised, we feel that it can be improved upon. Our observations con- 
vince us that the thing most needed is a machine which can be drawn 
by one or two horses and which will throw a spray of water on the under 
side of the leaves. 

The i)resent modes of poisoning are defective in that they require a 
large force of hands, often when there is much other work to be done; 
and what is a much more serious matter, as the poison is ai^plied to the 
upper side of the leaves of the plant, the young larvae are not killed 
until they are large enough to eat through the leaves. This would be 
of less importance could the poison be made to adhere to the leaves; 
but it often happens that the mixtures are washed ofl" the i)lants by 
rains soon after being applied, while if they were applied to the lower 
surface of the leaves all larvae feeding at this time would be poisoned, 
besides there being less liability of the poison being washed from the 
plants. 



whitman's fountain pump. 



241 









J'"^t' 




'^i~K':\'''i:^p 





IGCI 



242 



EEPOKT UPON COTTON INSECTS. 



.■J/i!/',:':niiH\lllliiril':iti;ii:;iii'„i v;/2™vv:'V(Vi;W;ij»!a\ll\»l»;iV'llilMlVl'!!i;"ii;;'! llllll'l!lliV|,l,il||liffiirj 

•HI 




MR. Willie's atomizer. 



243 



A machine intended to meet these requirements has been invented by 
Mr. W. T. Daughtry, of Selma, Ala., and is represented by Fig. 52. 
This consists of a large cylindrical reservoir mounted upon wheels and 
provided with an agitator for keeping the compounds well mixed. 
Force pumps, which are worked by gearing attached to the hub of one 
wheel, force air into the reservoir ; the pressure obtained in this way 
lorces streams of fluid through the distributing pipes ; each pipe extends 
nearly to the ground and is bent upwards at the end, which is furnished 
with a peculiar nozzle ; in this way a fine spray can be thrown upon the 
lower surface of the leaves. The machine is made to pass over two 
rows of cotton, and the distributing pipes are so arranged that four 
rows can be poisoned at a time. Owing to its great weight, the machine 
in its present form is impracticable, but the idea which it embodies is a 
good one. Mr. Daughtry's machine was patented February 19, 1878, 
No. 200376. 

1 





3 



C 



@ 




c 



® (^ 





Fig. 53.— AV. T. Willie's atomizer. 

Another machine has been invented for distributing liquid poisons 
upon cotton, by Mr. William T. Willie, of Brenham, Tex. ; patent No. 
158345, dated December 29, 1874. It consists of a frame which may 
be rigidly secured to a saddle, in a transverse position, there being cans 
for holding the liquid and provided with distributing faucets arranged 
upon both ends of the frame, the one balancing the other, and (me or 
both at the same time may be operated by the rider. 



244 EEPORT UPON COTTON INSECTS. 

No. 1 iu tbe cut is an end view of the machine ; ISTo. 2 is a plane view, 
and No. 3 is a side view of the same. 

A A' designate, respectively, the front and rear bars of tbe frame, connected to- 
gether on each side by means of a platform, C, npon which are to be placed oil-cans, 
B. or other convenient vessels for the reception of the destroying compounds. These 
vessels are removably secured thereto in any suitable manner, and their outer lateral 
edges are each provided with a distributing stop-cock, D, having a crescent-shaped 
perforated nozzle-piece, (I, by means of which the liquid poison will be shed over a 
wide s]iace. The front bar A has an angular notch, E, cut into its lower edge, near 
the apex of which, and one each side thereof, perforations, e, are made, by means of 
which it is secured to the pommel of the saddle. It is also provided with perforations, 
e', upon its lower edge, by means of which it is laterally stayed by a rope i^assing 
thence to the girth-rings on each side of the saddle. The rear bar A' is in like man- 
ner notched, as shown in Fig. 2, and is provided with a slot, /, at the apex of its 
notch, by means of which it is strapped to the cantle of a saddle, and with perfora- 
tions, /', along its lower edge, serving as a means of attachment for a rope, iiassing 
thence to the girth-rings on each side. 

It will be seen from the above description that the frame is iirmly attached both to 
the pommel and cantle of the saddle, and that it is braced and steadied to resist dis- 
placement by ropes or straps leading from the perforations e' and /' upon the front 
and rear bars of the frame, respectively, to the girth-rings on each side of the saddle, 
constituting a simple, convenient, and effectual attachment for the purpose of pre- 
venting any displacement. The notches of the front and rear bars A' A are intended 
to be straddled over that portion of the pad-frame of a saddle which projects in front 
of the pommel thereof, and extends in rear of the cantle, the rider being seated be- 
tween the two, with a poison-receptacle on each side, with their stop-cocks within 
easy reach of his hand. He can thus accurately regulate the flow of poison accord- 
ing to the amount required to efi'ect the purpose, the movement of the horse serving 
materi.ally to assist the distribution. 

Hon. John W. Johnson, of Cohimbus, Tex., has patented a machine 
for distributing liquid poisons npon cotton i)lants. This machine has 
been used to a considerable extent in Texas; it is represented in Y\^. 54. 

The following description will explain its workings : 

This invention relates to certain improvements on that for which I filed an applica- 
tion for letters patent on the 22d day of September, 1873 ; and the invention consists 
in a tank provided with a double-acting force-pump, communicating with a pipe and 
branches similar to those described in my application aforesaid, the pump being con- 
nected by a pitman with one of the wheels upon which the tank is supported, 
whereby the pump is operated automatically as the apparatus is drawn along, the 
wheels upon which the apparatus is sujiported being much smaller in diameter than 
ordinary cart or wagon wheels, and attached to the tank by means of vertical bars, 
whereby the apparatus is enabled to pass over the rows of cotton-plants without in- 
juring them, while at the same time the dimensions of the wheels are such as to give 
the required number of strokes to the pnmp-lever necessary to the producing of a con- 
stant and full volume of spray from the pipes. 

In the accompanying drawing. Fig. 1 is a side view of my invention ; Fig. 2 is a 
top view of the same ; Fig. 3 is a sectional view of one of the branch pipes. 

A represents the tank containing the liquid compound described in my application 
aforesaid. Instead of placing it upon an ordinary cart or wagon and woi'king the pump 
by hand, I attach the tank to a platform or cart-bed, B, provided with two wheels, C. 
These wheels .are much smaller than ordinary cart-wheels, being about twenty or twen- 
ty-four inches in diameter, in order to give the required number of revolutions neces- 
sary to tbe successful operation of the pump. In order to jilace the cart-bed at such 



Johnson's liquid poison machine. 



245 




an elevation as to enable it to pass over the rows of cotton-plants without iujiiriug 
them, I attach to each side the upper end of a bar, D, the lower end of which is bejit 
outward and formed into a spindle 
or axle for the wheel. These bars 
are of such length that when the 
wheels are in place the height of 
the cart-bed from the ground is 
ecjualto that of a vehicle provided 
with wheels from five to six feet 
in diameter. The wheels C may 
be of cast-u-on, and the bars D 
may be of wood or iron, as may 
be preferred. One of the wheels 
C has a crank-pin, c, formed on 
or attached to it at a suitable dis- 
tance from the center, and to this 
crank-pin is attached the lower 
end of ai)itman, E, the upper end of which 
is attached to the pump-lever, G. By this 
arrangement the pump is operated auto- 
matically as the apparatus is drawn over 
the field, thus dispensing with the labor 
of one man for operating the pump. The 
pipe and branches aie arranged and con- 
nected with the pump in a similar man- 
ner to that shown in my ai)i)lication afore- 
said, the supply-pipe H being provided 
with a stop- valve, I, to regulate the flow 
of the liquid. The branch-pipes, K, are 
made of cast-metal, instead of sheet metal, 
as shown in my application aforesaid, and 
instead of corrugating the metal as therein 
shown, I form the grooves I on the inner 
surface, either during the process of cast- 
ing or by planing or cutting them out after- FiG. 54.— J. W. Johnson's machine, 
ward, as may be preferred. The branch pipes thus formed are cheaper and more 
durable than those formed of corrugated sheet-metal. 

Bry poisons. — The dilution of poisons with powdered substances in- 
stead of water has been adopted to a considerable extent, and in some 
respects is far superior to the latter. The greatest obstacle that planters 
have had to encounter in the destruction of cotton-worms is the removal 
of the poison from the plants by rain. It frequently occurs that before 
a planter has completed poisoning a field a sudden rain undoes the work 
just performed. This obstacle is especially serious, as the rainy seasons 
are notably those in which the worms most rapidly multiply. In fact, 
many j)lanters have been discouraged, and abandoned the use of poisons 
on this account. This difficulty is, to a great extent, obviated by the 
use of flour as a diluting substance. The flour* combining with dew or 
rain forms a paste, which glues the poison to the leaves. This fact has 
been so well established that it is unnecessary to enlarge upon it. A 
single instance may be cited as an example: During the present season, 
on Capt. George O. Baker's plantation at Selma, Ala., the mixture known 
as Roy all's patent withstood Ave days of continual rain. 




246 



REPORT UPON COTTON INSECTS. 



Our experiments show that poison mixed witli tlour alone adlieres 
nearly as well as tlie above-named mixture, resin and dextrine seeming- 
to have but little action. It was also found that flour can be diluted to 
a certain extent by gypsum or land plaster. But poison mixed with 
plaster ulone adhered but little better than M'hen applied with water. 

Another advantage gained by the use of dry poisons is that there is 
less danger of injuring the cotton than when water is used. 

The great objection to this method of poisoning is its cost, the price 
of the flour adding materially to the expense; and, also, no way has yet 
been devised and brought into general use of applying dry mixtures as 
rapidly and easily as liquid poisons may be applied. We believe, how- 
ever, that unless some method is devised for throwing a spray of liquid 
poison upon the lower surface of the leaves, where it will be less liable 
to be washed off by rain, dry jjoisons will be found most practicable; 
and we feel sure that the objections of the expense can, to a great ex- 
tent, be I'emoved. Further experiments are necessary to devise a cheaper 
method of distributing powdered substances over plants, and to deter- 
mine to what extent the Hour may be profitably replaced by plaster or 
some other cheap material. The cost of the flour can doubtless be les- 
sened by using a poorer quality, which might be manufactured for the 
purpose from inferior or injured wheat. If a machine could be invented 
by which a mixture of one pound of Paris green and two pounds of flour 
could be quickly and evenly distributed over an acre of ])lants, the same 
end would be gained. 

The simplest method of applying dry poisons, and the one most gener- 
ally used, is by means of a tin vessel holding about a gallon, provided 
with a handle and having a bottom made of perforated tin. By means 
of this the poison can be sifted over the plants. This, however, is a 
slow process, as only one row at a time is poisoned. 

Some planters practice sowing the mixture when there is a light wind, 
being in this way enabled to poison several rows at once. Aside from 

the fact that the conditions favorable 
for this method cannot be relied upon, 
the poison cannot be as thoroughl}' 
distributed as is desirable. 

A device has been invented by Mr. 
J. W. Young, of Southfield, Mich., for 
dusting Paris green uj)on potato-vines; 
by means of this, two rows can be 
poisoned at once. The form is shown 
in Fig. 55 : 

The weight of the apparatus is bal- 
anced upon the shoulders by means 
of a neck-yoke, thus leaving the hands and arms free to move the 
handles. Each handle is attached to a brush that works horizontally 
across holes in the bottom of the can. The cans are adjustable to the 




Fig. 55. — Youuit's sifter. 



s. D. Allen's sifter 



247 



width of the rows or height of crop. Doubtless this machine would be 
fouud much better thau the hand-dusters, especially when poisoning 
small cotton. 

Fig. 50 represents an apparatus for distributing jDowdered substances 
upon plants, invented by Mr. Samuel D. Allen, of Philadelphia, Pa. 
Patent IS'o. 1787(!4. 





Fig. 



-Allen's duster. 



1 is a side view of the device ; 2, Jiu enlarged vertical sectional view of part of tlie 
same; 3, a transverse section on the line 1, 2, of 2. 

The poisoning compound is contained in a reservoir, A, and is forced in small quan- 
tities at a time through a spout, a, bj^ means of air forced into the reservoir from a 
pair of bellows, D, or other blowing mechanism, to which are connected arms, B, B', 
by means of which the bellows may be o]oerated, a spring, e, being attached to the 
end of an upright, /, to serve or assist in distending the bellows. The apjiaratus is 
mounted on a wheel, s, which imparts motion to the bellows through the medium of 
a rod, p, and studs, it, on the wheel. By each stud the rod is drawn downward until 
it is freed by springing away from the stud, when it will rise by the action of the 
spring c. The outer end of the lower arm B' is adapted to a segmental rod, g, and is 
provided with a set-scrcAv, by tightening which the arms and bellows may be con- 
fined in any relative i)osition to which they may be adjusted — as shown, for instance, 
by dotted lines in Fig. 1. The reservoir A is provided at one end with a funnel, d, 
through which the material is introduced into the reservoir, and at the opj)osite end 
is an inclined spout, a, over the end of which is fitted a funuel-shai)ed guard or shield, 
b, which protects the end of the spout, and prevents the clogging up of the same 
when used among wet foliage. 



248 



REPORT UPON COTTON INSECTS. 



The object of making the spout inclined, as shown, is to enable it to discharge 
either up or down, or on either side, as desired, -without changing the position of the 
bellows D, the change being eiiected by merely turning the reservoir around on the 
nozzle m of the bellows until the spout is pointed in the proper direction. 

The reservoir A is divided in the present instance by two longitudinal partitions, i 
i, which break up the contents of the reservoir and prevent them from accumulating 
in the lower portion of the same— openings J j', liowcver, allowing such communication 
as will permit the entrance of sufficient material into the lower portion of the reser- 
voir to supply the place of that expelled at each blast of the bellows, thus insuring an 
even discharge of the whole contents of the reservoir. 

In order to cause the air to act only on the portion contained in this lower division, 
the nozzle has an inclined face, v, in which the perforations for the escape of the air 
are formed, the air being thus directed against the bottom of the reservoir, and carry- 
ing with it a small quantity of the contents, which are expelled tlirough the spout a. 
A perforated disk, x, is inserted into the entrance of this spout, to assist in distribut- 
ing the contents evenly. 

This machine has been largely used for the potato-beetle an.d for 
greenhouse work. It was invented when people were much afraid of 
handling Paris green ; of late it has been used but little, as it is worth- 
less for distributing bulky compounds like Hogal's patent and others 
now used. It may be found that much less bulky compounds will an- 
swer as well ; in which case there will be a demand for a machine of 
this kind. 

Mr. W. T. Willis, of Brenham, Tex., has also invented a machine for 
the purpose of distributing dry poison upon the plants. This machine 
is adapted to be secured across the front part of a saddle and to be oper- 
ated by the rider. 

No. 2 in the accompanying figure is a sectional view of the machine. 
No. 3 is a detail view. 

A A designate two boxes of any suitable capacity, which are constructed with two 
lixed sieves, p j>, and movable sieves jj', arranged between the fixed sieves and b\\]}- 

ported upon rods, so as to slide 
^' "" freely when the boxes are vi- 

brated, and aid in pulverizing the 
material, and at the same time 
scattering it uniformly. The 
upper sieves |> will support the 
bulk of the material free from 
the scattering-sieves }}'. Each 
. box has secured to it a suspen- 
sion-standard, B, having a num- 
ber of holes, a, through it, ar- 
ranged one above another, and 
adapted to receive suspension- 
pins b c, and allow the boxes to 
be adjusted vertically for higher 
low jilants. C designates a bar, 
from which rises a guide-rod, C. This bar C is intended to be secured by the middle 
of its length to a ridding-saddle in front of the rider, and through its ends holes are 
made, throTigh which the standards B B are passed, and sustained by means of the 
pins c c. Supplemental holes are made through the bar C, to allow the boxes A A 
to be adjusted for rows of plants varying in width. D designates a bar, the ends of 



JC^^^^k 



C ' 



^^^^^[IZ 



KSWM K\w\\\\\v;^w;^\\\\\\^ m\\\\\\\w;w\\v\M 



No. 3 




'«:) 




Fig. 57.— Willis' sifter. 



N. A. DAVIS SIFTER. 



249 



which are slotted longitudiDally to receive the standards B B, and at or near the 
middle of the length of this bar D a hole is made to receive freely through it the rod 
C. The ends of bar D are notched at n, and are attached to the standards B B by 
fitting these notches over the pins h h, as shown in Figs. 1 and 2. 

The machine thus described is operated while the horse is traveling between the 
rows of plants by giving endwise motion to the bar D, which will comnumicate vi- 
brating motions to the sifting-boxes and scatter the powder over the plants.— [Patent 
No. 160,980, dated M arch 6, 1875.] 

Fig. 58 illustrates the machine patented by Mr. Nicholas A. Davis, 
of Eusk, Tex. 

No. 1. 




Fig. 58. — N. A. Davis' sifter. 



No. 1 represents the invention attached to a cart ; No. 2 is a cross- 
section through the line y y. 

In the drawings, A represents an ordinary farm-cart, across the rear end of which is 
seciired the horizontal shaft B, having its bearings in the arms c c, projecting behind the 
cart. On the shaft B, I place two or more loosely- revolving perforated cylinders, E, 
being revolved upon the shaft, which carries a pulley, a, over which a band or cord 
works, passing to the hub of the cart-wheel, from which it receives motion, and thus 
causes the shaft B to revolve when the cart is in motion, and the shaft, cari'viug the 
perforated cylinders, pre\dously filled with the powdered poison, causes the poison to 
be sifted out and distributed over the cotton jjlants. Attached to the inner end of 
each of the outside cylinders is a sjiiral spring, h, coiled around the shaft, A, and so 
arranged as to secure an easy, gentle, lateral motion to the cylinders in case of a sud- 
den jar given the machine, and thus prevent too great a discharge of the poison at 
any one point. 

It is evident that a similar spring may be used at the opposite end of the cylinders, 
so as to check the jar in both directions. 

From the above description of the invention, it is evident that it could be affixed 
to any kind of frame moving on wheels, and by a hand-crank and ordinary cog-gearing 
be successfully worked. — [Patent No. 154C51, dated September 7, 1874.] 



2.00 



RLPOirr uro.N co'i'Tox i>!Sects. 



Fig. 59 represents the patent of Mr. Charles F. Levy, of Natchi- 
toches, La. 



No. 1. 



No. 2. 




Fig. 59. — C. A. Levy's machiue. 

No. 1 is a side view of the machine ; No. 2 is a side view partly in 
section hroujili one of the cylinders. 

A are t wo cyliiidcis formed by attaching the wire gauze or finely-perforated sheet- 
metal to circular ends or disks. To the inner surfaces of the cylinders A are attached 
longitudinal stri]is B, to one side of each of which is attached a strip C, of tin or other 
suitable sheet-metal, which strips thus form llanges, Avhich, as the cylinders revolve, 
raise the compound and allow it to fall back, so as to ki^ep it stirred up and prevent 
the heavier ingredients from settling and thus escaping in too large a i)roportion 
and unevenly. The cylinders A are placed upon the end parts of a shaft, D, and are 
secured in place adjustably by keys or nuts, so that they may be moved toward or 
from each other to correspond with the distance apart of the rows of plants. Upon 
the middle part of the shaft D is formed a crank, d', by means of which the cylinders 
revolved, either hj taking hold of said crank d' directly, or by a short handle, E, 
pivoted to said crank. The shaft D revolves in eyes in the upper ends of two bars, 
F, the upper parts of which are curved to give room for the crank d' to oijerate. 'The 
lower parts of the bars F are parallel with each other, and pass down upon the oppo- 
site sides of the standard G, to which they are secured by a bolt, H, which passes 
through a hole in the lower parts of the said bars F, and through a slot in the said 
standard G, so that by loosening the hand-nut h' of the bolt H the cylinder A may be 
raised and lowered, as the height of the cotton plants may require. 

The bars F may be kept from turning upon the bolt H by lugs formed upon the 
inner sides of the bars F, and which enter the slot of the standard G, or bv a second 
bolt. 

The lower end of the standard G is branched, and has screw-holes fonned through 
said branches to receive the screws or bolts by which the machine is secured to the 
forward part of a saddle, or to the frame of a sulky, according as it is designed to 
operate the machine upon horseback or upon wheels.— [Patent No. 154690, dated 
September 1, 1874.] 



MACHINE OF F. A. ELDEIDGE. 



251 



The iusect-destroyer patented by Mr. Frank A. Eldridge, of Brenham, 
Tex., is also designed to distribute dry poisons over the cotton plant. 

The nature of the in^•entiou consists in the employment, upon a suita- 
ble vehicle, of two or more recepta- 
cles for containing- poison-powder, 
which receptacles have perforated 
or sieve bottoms, and contain with- 
in them rotary stirring-blades and 
brushes, actuated as will be herein- 
after explained, whereby the poison- 
dust can be regularlj^, and at the same 
time economicallj^, distributed upon 
two or more rows of plants at the 
same time. 

No. 1 is a top view of the macliiiie ; No. 2 is 
a side elevation showing one of the poison- 
rece])tacles in section ; No 3 is a front eleva- 
tion. 

A designates the axle of two transport- 
ing-wheels, B B, from which axle rises h 
frame, C, carrj-iug three j)oison-powder 
receptacles, D D D', which are preferably 
of cylindrical form, and which have finely 
lierlbrated bottoms a. The two side recepta- 
cles, D D, are arranged so as to distribute 
the powder upon two rows of plants, and 
the rear receptacle distributes the powder 
upon the intermediate row, thus jilaying 
on three rows at the same time. Each 
receptacle contains radial blades h, which 
are applied to a central shaft, c, and pro- 
vided with brushes d, which act upon the 
j)erforated bottom a. 

The blades b stir the powder, and prevent 
it from clogging, and the brushes compel it 
to pass through the screen-bottoms in a uni- 
form manner. 

The upper ends of the shafts c of the re- 
ceptacles D D have spur-wheels e on them, 
which engage with spur-wheels / on the 
ends of a horizontal shaft, E, which has its bearings on top of the frame C, and which 
is provided with pulleys g g g'. The pulleys g g receive rotation from jiulleys on the 
inner ends of the hubs of wheels B B through the medium of belts 7t h. 

The rotation thus given to shaft E is transmitted to the shaft c of the blades and 
brushes which are in the receptacle D'. 

The machine thus described will be propelled by two horses hitched to the draffc- 
tongue A', and, if desired, the axle A may be centroEy arched, so as not to interfere 
with the plants over which it j>asses. 

Mr. William T. Eobinson, of Huntsville, Tex., has invented a machine 
that combines a sprinkler and duster, so that dry or fluid poisons maybe 
applied at the will of the operator, or the plants may first be sprinMed 




Fig. 60. — F. A. Eldridge's machine. 



252 



REPORT UPON COTTON INSECTS. 



and the dry poison applied immediately after this, causing the powder 
to adhere better. 




Fig. 61. — ^W. T. Robinson's combined sprinkler and duster. 

No. 1 is a plane view and No. 2 is a longitudinal sectional elevation of Mr. Robin- 
son's machine. 

A is a two-wlieeled truck, of proper beiglit and widtli to run along above one row 
and provided with a tongue to hitch on the animals, so as to go on opposite sides of 
the row. B is a liquid-holding tank on the front part of the frame. C is a sprink- 
ling-tube, connected with the tank and extending across the frame and beyond far 
enough to reach the two outside rows, and having small perforations, D, at the ends, 
and also at the middle, E, for sprinkling the liquid upon the three rows of cotton. A 
gate or valve, F, is arranged in the tank to shut off the liquid from the spriilkling- 
tube when it is not required to flow, and also regulate the discharge. The end of this 
tube is to be closed with a cap or plug, so that it can be opened, and be swabbed out 
from time to time, as it becomes foul. Behind the truck is a horizontal shaft, G, ex- 
tending each way beyond the wheels, for reaching over the outside rows, and carrying 
three or more revolving screens or sieves, H, for sprinkling on ])Owdered substances. 
Said shaft is mounted on the rear end of the frame I, which is jointed to the truck at 
J, and suspended from the frame M by ropes, L, which are wound up on the shaft N, 
or let out from it, to shift the screens according to the height of the plants. The shaft 



DESTRUCTION OF WORMS BY MACHINERY. 



253 



is revolved by a belt, O, from one of the wheels of the truck, working on cone-pulleys, 
P O, for varying the speed of the screens or sieves, as may bo required. The pulley O 
on the shaft G connects with it by a clutch, R, which is connected with a shilting- 
lover, S, for throwing the shaft out of gear when turning around at the ends of the 
rows, to save waste of material. T is a box for carrying the stock of powder, from 
which to replenish the screens or sieves as they become exhausted from time to time. 
Said box may be also used for a seat for the driver. The sieves are supplied through 
an opening in the ends, which may be closed by a gate or door of any kind, or by an 
opening in the side similarly closed. Both attachments, the one with sieves for sifting 
on in powder, and the one for sprinkling in fluid, are detachably connected to the 
frame. 

When it is desired to put on the poison with the sieves, in powder, the sprinkling 
attachment is used for the purpose of dampening the plant, causing the I'.owder to ad- 
here more firmly, so that the process may be continued through the whole day. 

If it is desired to put on the poison in liquid, then the sprinkling attachment need 
only be used. 

DESTRUCTION OF LARVAE BY MACHINERY. 



Two machines have been invented and piatented for the purpose of 
brushing the worms from the cotton plant and destroying them. Neither 
of these machines, so far as I have been able to ascertain, have come into 
general use. It is doubtful if a practicable machine of this kind can be 
constructed, owing to the danger of knocking off the bolls of cotton when 
in operation. The following is an illustration of the machine invented 
by Mr. Jackson Helm, of Hochheim, Tex. : 

No. 1. 




1 is a side elevation; 2 is a vertical transverse section of the lower 
part of the same, taken on the plane of the line c c,l; 3 is a vertical 
transverse section on the line Jc Ic, 1. 

In the accompanying cut the letter A represents a frame composed of two bottom- 
boards, a a, of four or more uprights, b b, and a suitable series of cross-braces, d d. Tlie 
boards n a are on a level and parallel to each other, and have wings e e and //hinged 
to their inner and outer edges, respectively. To each of the front posts b is pivoted. 



254 



EEPORT UPON COTTON INSECTS. 



at g, a lever B, which carries a wheel, C, at its front eud. There are thus two such 
wheels, C C, that rest on the ground in front of the apparatus. Draft-hooks h h are 

applied to the front ends of the 
levers B for hitching the draft ani- 
mals to, by which the machine is 
drawn over the held. The levers 
B can be swung on their pivots, to 
raise the frame A on the wheels C, 
whenever stones, stumps, or other 
obstructions are to be avoided. In 
T^Q 2. such case the levels B are or can 

be locked to toothed-j)latcs i, which 
are applied to the rear posts h, as indicated in Fig. 2. When the machine is to 
be turned, it is also necessary to elevate the frame A off the ground, and throw the 
whole weight of the apparatus upon the wheels C. Whenever the frame A is thus 
raised, the wings e and / will be swung up, to clear the ui^jjer expanded parts of the 

No. 3. 





Fig. &2. — Helm's machine. 



cotton-plants. This is done by connecting the two wings that are hinged to each 
board a with each other by a string j, which passes over the lever B, so that in swing- 
ing up such lever, the string will be drawn with it to contract or swing up the wing. 
In the front ends of two horizontal bars I I, that are longitudinally secured to the 
upper parts of the posts h, is hung a trauverse drum or shaft D, and from which a 
series of pointed brushes, E E, are suspended. Brushes F F are also rigidly affixed to 
a cross-bar, m, back of the shaft D, and to inclined bars n n, that are secured to the 
sides of the frame A. These several brushes are made of split white-oak, or other 
suitable material. 

For use, the machine is placecl to straddle a row of cotton between the inner wings 
e c. Th(^ boards a a rest in the furrows and the outer wings on the rising sides of the 
adjoining ridges, all as clearly shown in Fig. 2. The wings rest with their weight on 
the sides of the ridges. The machine being drawn ahead, the shaft D is revolved by 
its brushes E, which come in contact with tbe cotton-plants. Also, by siibsequent 
contact with the brushes F F, the worms are all swept to the ground, on which they 
are finally crushed and destroyed by the weight of the boards a, and wings e/. 

It will be noticed that as the machine is drawn successively over the several rows 
or ridges of cotton, each side of each ridge is twice pressed, once by an outer wing,/, 



WILLIAM EWING S MACHINE. 



255 



and then by an inner wing, e; once while the apparatus straddles an adjoining ridge, 
and then again while it straddles the same ridge to which such side pertains. — [Patent 
No. 13906-2, dated November 16, 1872.] 

The inventor of the other machine for knocking the worms oft' the 
cotton phiut is Mr. William Ewing, of Columbia, La. Mr. Ewing, in his 
letters patent, says : 

It is well known to planters and cultivators of the cotton-plant, that scarcely a 
season passes over in which material injury is not done to the crop by the cotton- 
worm. Generally the loss occuniug by this source of damage will amount to one-half, 
but in many seasons the entire crop is ruined. 

Various ellorts have, therefore, been made to destroy the cotton-worm. 

On carefully studying the growth and habits of the cotton-worm,. I ascertained that 
one of its leading instincts is to drop or throw itself off from the plant, upon moderate 
disturbance of the leaves and branches. It is upon this instinct that my invention is 
based ; and 




Fig. G3. — W. Ewing's machine. 

My invention consists in the use of a machine or apparatus, so constructed that it 
may be di-awn by hand, or liy a horse or mule, between the rows of the plants, and 
agitatiug the leaves or stems, disturb the worms, and cause them to carry out their 
instinct, and drop or throw themselves off from the jilauts. 

If such disturbance be made by any suitable means, the worms will usually diop to 
the ground, and where only a few acres are cultivated, reliance may be placed upon 
the destruction of the worms by the fowls or chickens of the plantation ; but in large 
fields, some means for securing the worms and removing them will have to be resorted 
to. Such means are provided under my invention. 

No. 1 of Fig. G3 represents the top of the machine ; No 2, a side view 
of the same ; and No. 3, a view of one of the arms detached. 

It will be seen, by reference to the cut, that upon a frame, «, constructed of wood, or 
other suitable material, is stretche<l or fastened canvas, &, or some proper fabric, the 
frame having wheels c d e and a yoke, /, or drawing device. 



256 EEPORT UPON COTTON INSECTS. 

Upon the front wheel e, on either side, are pins, g, which act upon the lower ends h 
of the arms i as the wheel is rotated. These arms are pivoted to plates, /, and extend 
upward and outward, so as to pass along the sides and over the tops of the plants. 

To the upper parts of these arms, other tiibu^ar arms, fc, are affixed, so that the 
brushes I, secured thereto, may be adjusted, elevated, or lowered to the height of the 
plants. 

These brushes are held in place by eyes or rings m. 

Now, if the canvas h be smeared with tar, or any other material to which the worms 
will stick or adhere for a reasonable length of time, as the machine is drawn or pushed 
forward the worms will be dislodged from the plants, and falling uiion the smeared 
surface of the canvas may easily be gathered up and destroyed. 

The machine or apparatus here shown and described is intended to be passed be- 
tween two rows of the plants, and will not, therefore, be likely to catch all the worms 
that may be disturl5ed and fall. If to such machine, however, a light frame 'of wire 
rods or cane be attached to the side bars, and extending upward above the top of the 
plants, and thence down to near the ground, and there have a frame to which can- 
vas is affixed, two rows of plants will be operated upon at the same time, and all the 
worms be caught ; or if two machines like that here shown be used, each traveling 
between two rows of the plants, and by some such frame-work as hero named have a 
canvas sack or bed between the intervening two rows of plants, then one or more rows 
may also be acted upon. 

In this arrangement of the machine or apparatus, the brushes or their substitutes 
would have to be difterently located from those here shown. Such diffi^rence of loca- 
tion and means for operating the brushes will readily occur to any individual desiring 
to construct a machine having these modifications. — [Patcait No* 95,995, dated October 
19, 1869.] 

DESTRUCTION OF PUPAE. 

Although the collection and destruction of the pupae of Aletia at the 
season during' which the greatest damage is done M'oiild be impracticable, 
much good could be accomplished in this way if attempted at the proper 
time. Early in the season, while the cotton plants are small, it is an 
easy matter to detect the presence of pupae by searching for the 
folded leaves containing them. As already suggested, when treating 
of the collection of larvae by hand, it doubtless would be profitable to 
offer the negroes a prize for each pupa obtained at this time. The folded 
leaves are so easily observed that with little care nearly every pupa in 
a field could be collected while chopping out the cotton in the spring. 
In the autumn many pupae could be destroyed by collecting together 
and burning the weeds in the leaves of which the larvae have webbed 
up. This shoidd be done as soon as possible after the last brood webs 
up, and before the moths emerge from the iHi])ae state. 

DESTRUCTION OF MOTHS. 

As to the possibility of destroying a sufficient number of moths to 
materially lessen the numbers of the worms, opinions differ greatly 
among planters. The following extracts from our correspondence will 
serve to show the disbelief in such remedies that prevails. These extracts 
are from letters from all parts of the cotton belt : : 

''I have seen fires used at night and drugs used to poison, but don't believe it ever 
did any good, for the worm finally ate up all the cotton." 

" Efforts have been made to allure and destroy the moths, years ago, by lights and 



POISONED SWEETS YS. COTTON MOTHS. 257 

poisoned sugar, molasses, and vinegar. While they destroyed large quantities of the 
insects, it did not seem to affect the numbers of worms to any extent." 

"Some years ago the planters (many of them) used tin plates made for the purpose, 
on which was placed vinegar sweetened with sugar or molasses. Fires were also 
made on stands in the field to attract the fly. But as they have been generally 
abandoned I suppose the results were not satisfactory." 

"Efforts made to destroy moths have all of them proved failures. None of them 
are worth a cent." 

"But little has been accomplished. Much money has been wasted in efforts to poison 
them." 

" Lights at night and sweetened baits have been used, but with such unsatisfactory 
results as to be abandoned. I have known little success to follow the efforts to de- 
stroy the moths." 

" Every effort to destroy the moth by allurement or traps are consummate failures. 
I have experimented in trying to decoy and known others to try fires, traps, and 
lamps at night, and every effort was worthless and a loss of time; vinegar, molasses, 
&c., on plates or otherwise, worth nothing." 

' ' The different methods have been tried to destroy the moth but all have failed." 

" But little value is attached to this method of destruction. It has only been tried 
on a limited scale. Poisons, torches, &c., have been used with but little success." 

"Many futile and unsuccessful efforts have been made, such as poisoning and build- 
ing fires, but all have proved to be failures." 

"I do not believe any of the methods of destruction mentioned would do any good." 

"No good has resulted from the efforts to allure and destroy the moths; no actual 
benefit from poisoned sugar, molasses, and vinegar, and fires." 

"All efforts to destroy the moths have been useless." 

" I believe one of these idans as good as another and all of them useless." 

" Poison as ordinarily used is of little value; molasses and vinegar is less. Fires, 
unless used by all planters, decidedly hurtful." 

"I know nothing of poisoning, as it has never been tried in this locality. Fires 
have been tried, but without effect. One man in this neighborhood tried lamps sur- 
rounded by small tin plates smeared with molasses. If he ever caught any I never 
heard of it. Many peoj»le went to see the result of his experiments but nothing came 
of it." 

" All methods of alluring the moth by fires or sweetened substances have proved 
futile. Many are indeed destroyed, but sufficient remains to do their destructive 
work." 

"Some experiments made with fires show that the fires, while they attract the 
moths, destroy but few, and fields in which fires have been kept have suffered more 
than those adjacent in which there were no fires." 

The two most successful methods of destroying the moths that have 
been used are the placing of poisoned solutions, sweetened to attract 
the moths, about the cotton fields, and the lighting of fires or the attract- 
ing of the moths to lanterns arranged so that the moths may fly into 
the blaze, or so that they may be destroyed in different ways, either by 
striking the glass and falling into a sticky mixture, or by any way which 
the invention of the planter may have prepared. It will be best to con- 
sider these separately. 

(a.) POISONED SWEETS. 

We have already shown (Chap. Ill) how the moth of the cotton-worm 
is attracted to sweets of various sorts, as the nectar of various plants, 
17 01 



258 REPOET UPON COTTON INSECTS. 

ripe and decaying fruits of different sorts, and this proclivity very natur- 
ally suggests the placing of poisoned baits. Years ago this used to be 
practised very much more extensively than at the present day. Mr. 
Glover long recommended this remedy in the Department of Agriculture 
Eeports, his first mention of it being a detailed account of the phenome- 
nal success of Col. B. A. Sorsby, in the report for 1855. The old files 
of the Southern agricultural papers contain frequent mention of the 
use of the method. One of the most remarkable statements was con- 
tained in the Southern Cultivator (Vol. VIII, p. 132) to the effect that 
the writer had, with 80 plates of poisoned molasses and vinegar, aver- 
aged 1,000 moths a night throughout the season. 

The answers of correspondents to question 7a of the 1878 circular 
show that this remedy has almost entirely fallen into disuse. Some 
planters, however, still believe in its efficacy. We may quote the fol- 
lowing : 

But few efforts have been made to destroy the moths, farmers of late years chiefly 
relying on poisoning the worms ; however, the idea is gaining foothold that it is bet- 
ter to try and destroy the moth and thereby prevent the appearance of the worm in 
destructive numbers. The best mode seems to be to set up lights in the field above or 
in front of some sweet adhesive substance. Moths appear to be attracted by all sweet 
substances. I have seen them attracted by thousands, after the first brood had web- 
bed up, to dried peaches that were dried on boards in the sun, and had been covered 
up at night with boards, the moths collecting by thousands under the covering of the 
dried peaches, hunflreds being killed by a lamp in a short time. A mouse made a 
nest with the dead moths the same night. — [J. H. Krancher. 

Watermelons cut open and spread around with arsenic sprinkled on will kill the 
moth. 

I used, with full effect, the arsenite of soda combined with a little vinegar and mo- 
lasses. I did not use any intoxicating liquids, as I was fully satisfied that every moth 
imbibing the poisoned sweet was instantly killed ; none of the dead appearing at 
any appreciable distance from the pans. — [W. J. Jones. 

Little or no effort has been made. My opinion is that something should be done 
with poisoned molasses and fires or lamps. A few nights ago I placed a cup three 
inches in diameter, with a little molasses in it, a distance from lights and cotton- 
plants, and found six moths in it next morning, all of them cotton-caterpillar moths 
A year or two ago I divided an overripe watermelon and placed it in a similar posi- 
tion, and by eight o'clock at night there were 50 or 75 moths feeding on it. — [ Jno. 
Bradford, Leon County, Florida. 

The following testimony is from Dr. Anderson : 

As an instance of the effect of light and its fondness for sweets, I will mention what 
a neighbor told me, and for which, to a great extent, I had ocular demonstration. 
He was engaged in boiling sirup from the first of September to the last of October. 
His yard, where the evaporating pan was, opened upon a field of 60 or 80 acres of 
cotton. He each morning found his pan cbvered with moths, and from first to last 
thought he had emptied out one bushel of moths. Another case showing strikingly 
the effect of lights and sweets was told me by a highly valued Texas correspondent. 
A neighbor of his, by the use of lights and poisoned sweets, had made 1,000 bales of 
cotton on 1,000 acres, while his neighbors who had not used them had been badly 
damaged. 

During the season of 1878 experiments were made by Professor Smith, 
at Tuscaloosa, Ala., in the latter part of the season, and by Professor 



EXPERIMENTS IN ''SUGAEING." 259 

Willet and myself earlier. Concerning Professor Smith's results, we 
quote from his letters : 

October 10, 1878. — Since writing to you last I have done all I could towards observ- 
ing the habits of the moths, experimenting with poisoned sweets, &c. As yet I have 
not been fortunate in getting a solution by wliich the moths are readily killed. I have 
tried corrosive sublimate and arsenious acid, and with them molasses and water in 
various proportions. The solutions I have smeared upon pine trees standing in the 
field, upon little shelves set -up ab places in the field, and upon a dish placed upon a 
stump. To one pine tree in particular the moths seemed to be attracted most strongly. 
The shelves attracted very few comparatively. I am still engaged in these trials with 
shallow dishes with perforated shelves, according to your suggestion, and I shall let 
you know if I find out anything. 

October 16. — Since writing you last I have continued my experiments with various 
poisoned sweets ; but, I am sorry to say, with but very poor success so far as killing 
the moth is concerned. I have used for poisons arsenious acid, corrosive sublimate, 
strychnia, and potassium cyanide; these I have mixed in varying proportions with 
rum and sweetened water. The bait appears to be attractive enough and I see the 
moths partaking of it, and yet no dead moths are visible next morning. The propor- 
tion of rum which I have mixed with these poisons has been sometimes one-half, and 
from that down. Of the jjoisons named above the potassium cyanide is perhaps most 
easily soluble in the liquids used. Smearing the sweetened liquids upon the trunks 
of trees is, according to my experience, the best way of exposing them ; I have not 
seen many moths around the dishes set nj) on shelves and on stumps. I constructed 
a shelf against a pine tree and upon that placed a dish with the sweets, and provided 
with a floating perforated platform. The tree was at the same time smeared with 
the liquid, and upon visiting the place after dark I noticed a number of moths on the 
tree, on the smeared shelf, and on the dish with the platform, those on the dish 
being much less numerous. * * * About the time that the worms were moving ofl: 
and webbing up, very few moths visited the sweets at night for several nights, but 
last night and the night before that they were more abundant. Perhaps the cool 
weather was the cause of their being absent for several nights, since they have come 
in numbers again after the warmer nights have set in. 

November 4, 1878. — I send by to-day's mail a few specimens of the moths attracted 
by my baits. No. 1 is, I presume, Aletia {Aletia argillacea); No. 2 is Agrotis ypsilon, 
always present in cold as well as warm weather, and No, 3 (Leucania unijmncta) also; 
No. 4 {AmpMpyra, sp.) resembles 3 and may be same species ; No. .'> ( Orthosiafemiginoides) 
I see occasionally on warm evenings; No. 6 (Chrysis, sp.) I found to-day. I should 
be very glad to get the names of the specimens as they are numbered. I inclose a 
few of the chrysalides of the last brood of worms. 

The evening of October 26 was warm (66° at 7 p. m.), and more than 50 cotton-moths 
were counted at my baited tree. It rained before morning and then cleared off cold, so 
that on the 27th and 28th no moths were seen. On the 29th it was warm and cloudy 
and rained slightly, and I counted 7 or 8 Aletia moths. On the 30th, 3 1st, 1st, and 2d 
cold and frosty nights ; no moths seen. 

Professor Smith continued his sugaring all through the winter, cap- 
turing many other moths, but no Aletia later than December 1. 

The observations of Professor Willet and myself were reported by 
Professor Willet as follows : 

"Pmc/^es.— Professor Comstock heard in Alabama that the Aletia 
moths had greatly injured the August crop of ]3eaches. On the night of 
September 10 Professor Comstock placed two peaches — clear-stoned and 
quite ripe — one on each side of two stumps on whose sides molasses had 



260 REPORT UPON COTTON INSECTS. 

been smeared, aud visited them at 9 p. m. "We (Professor Comstock 
and myself, Professor E. having left for Washington) found 20 Aletia 
moths on one peach and 15 on the other, notwithstanding the molasses. 
At 7 o'clock next morning nearly as many moths were at the peaches, 
though the sun was an hour high. One peach had a hole oue-thirty- 
second inch in diameter, and the peach had been eaten out underneath 
the skin to a depth of one-fourth inch and a diameter of 1 inch. The 
other peach had 5 holes, not so large, and probably 50 excoriations one- 
fourth inch in diameter. They clustered most about the stem end, where 
they could thrust in their bills without eftbrt. 

" September 12. — The halves of the same peach, opened, were placed out 
last night, and 10 Aletia and 1 other moth were found at them this morn- 
ing. 

" Some dried peaches (with skins on) having been soaked in water, were 
placed out at same time, but no moths were found at them. After re- 
turning here, two hard peaches were put in ajar where some moths had 
hatched from chrysalides; the moths were almost famished and immedi- 
ately clustered over the peaches, but failed to make any impression on 
them. 

POISONING THE MOTHS. 

" 1. Molasses. — Mixed Fowler's solution of arsenic with common molas- 
ses, 1 tablespoonful to 1 J pints, and placed some in tin pan, with floating 
perforated cover of tin, as suggested by Professor Riley. After about 
two hours we found 2 Aletia and 2 other moths sipping ; next morning 
probably a dozen of Aletia and other moths were found drowned in the 
molasses, having insinuated down by the sides of the cover; none dead 
on the ground. 

" Mixed some of same poisoned molasses with sirups of strawberry, 
orange, and pine-api)le, and with rum, vinegar, and lager beer, and 
smeared on trees and stumps in the cotton field and adjoining forest. 
At 9 p. m. found 1 Aletia aud 2 other moths at the vinegar and 2 Aletia 
at the beer ; at 7 next morning found only one feeble Aletia at the beer. 
The poison did not seem to be strong enough. 

" 2. Peaches. — September 12, we put out in the cotton field, in large 
paper boxes — 

a. Peaches (halves) thickly sprinkled with white arsenic. 

l)^ Peaches (halves) drenched with Fowler's solution. 

c. Dried peaches (soaked) covered with white arsenic. 

d. Dried i^eaches (soaked) with Fowler's solution. 
Visited boxes next morning, with following result : 
a. Five dead Aletia, 2 disabled Aletia. 

h. Two dead Aletia, 1 dying Aletia. 

c. Two Aletia in box not dead. 

d. No moths of any kind. 

"As peaches seemed so attractive, we desired to have tested the poisons 
further with peach preserves and canned peaches, but a northeast gale 



EXPERIMENTS WITH POISONED SWEETS. 261 

X)revailed until the last day of our stay, and the moths had then almost 
entirely disappeared. 

" My own opinion is that peaches, in some form, will be the best vehi- 
cle for poison for the moths." 

A letter from Judge Bailey, of Marion, Ala., contains the following, 
bearing on this point : 

One fa rmer informed me that the moths utterly destroyed a large fig crop in less than 
a week. Another informed me that all his best apples were pnuctured and sucked 
into a sort of honey-comb work by the cotton-miller. A physician in tho northwest 
liart of the country assured mo that the army-worm sucked his grapes dry iu three 
nights. I know the moths are strongly attracted by cider pomace from the cider-mill. 
They feed upon ripe persimmons with great avidity. I observed them around a tree 
of this kind on my lot as late as the 21st of November last. While they were feeding 
on the fruit of this tree I make some efforts to poison them, but with poor success. I 
tried several poisons handed me hy an apothecary ; only one had any efl'ect. It was 
cobalt, finely powdered, and mixed with the fruit mashed with a small quantity of 
honey. The flies sought the bait in great numbers, biit, like bees, they sucked their 
fill and left ; only nine were found dead around the saucer containing the poison. 

With respect to observations the present year, the following from Mr. 
Trelease's reiDort will give the results at which he arrived : 

Since the perfect form, or moth, of Aleiia is known to feed upon sugared substances 
and fruits, and since it is known to be attracted by light to a certain extent, it has 
been thought possible to destroy the moth by allowing it to feed on poisoned sweets, 
or by employing this food or lights to attract it into traps of various sorts. 

As will be seen by referring to my report on the food of these moths, they are at- 
tracted in large numbers by ripe apples, peaches, and grapes, beside one or two other less 
common fruits ; but I signally failed to attract them in numbers to my mixtures of molas- 
ses or sugar and various substances. Though no experiments on a large scale were con- 
ducted, I feel confident that poisoned dishes of ripened and slightly fermenting fruits 
which have been bruised may be advantageously employed for the destruction of these 
moths, by placing them about the cotton fields when tho moths are flying. I would 
recommend that this be tried, especially on warm days in winter, when the moths 
are allured from their hiberuacula, in the early sirring, and in the fall, after the brood 
Avhich destroys the cotton have emerged as moths. 

From all observations it seems probable that a preparation of over- 
ripe fruit — peaches, melons, mashed apples, or iiersimmons — will be 
superior to any other sweet mixture for the purpose of attracting the 
moths, although, as shown by Professor Smith, one-half each of rum 
and molasses and water, when smeared upon the trunks of trees, has 
jDroved attractive. 

Actual results with poisons have proved rather unsuccessful, but this 
may be owing to the fact that the moths fly away to die. As regards 
the best poison. Judge Jones seems to have had excellent success with 
arsenite of soda, while Judge Bailey considers the so-called "cobalt"* 
the best thing that he tried. It is also called " blue-stone" or " flj^-stone," 
and is customarily used in fly-poisons. 

And now, as regards the advisability of an extensive use of poisoned 

* The ordinary cobalt of druggists is nothing more nor less than impure metallic 
arsenic, costing from 6 to 15 cents per pound. Called cobalt on account of former laws 
against the selliusr of arsenic in England. 



262 



REPORT UPON COTTON INSECTS. 



sweets, it is a question for every planter to decide for himself from the 
evidence laid down. 

There can be no doubt but that it would be an excellent plan to try it 
in those regions where hibernation is suspected on the spots where the 
worms first appear. The sweets should be put out in these places in early 
spring and also in late fall. The importance of the latter is evinced 
from the fact of Professor Smith's success in October. There can cer- 
tainly be no doubt but that every moth killed saves the planter from 
a great many worms, but the hibernating moths are, of course, of im- 
mensely greater importance than those of any of the succeeding broods. 
Concerning the later broods, the cost of poisoning must be set against 
the numbers of moths killed, and each planter must decide for himself 
whether it will pay him to continue. 
In 18G0 J. M. Heard patented a moth-trap, which has been quite ex- 
tensively used throughout the 
South. It consists simply of 
a broad, shallow pan, which is 
y filled with the attracting mix- 
ture, and a broader cover to 
protect it from the sun and 
rain. The figure represents a 
vertical section. 

Fig. 64.-Heard's moth-trap. , ^g ^^1^ Mr. Heard recom- 

mends the use of molasses mixed with a Uttle anise, fennel, or other 
essential oil. " The oil," he says, " should be put in as much alcohol as 
will dissolve it, and added to the molasses in the proportion of one-half 
ounce of the oil to the gallon of molasses." They will need to be cleaned 
out and replenished once a week. 




FIRES, TRAP-LANTERNS, ETC. 

For many years the practice of building large fires at different points 
through the cotton fields for the purpose of attracting the moths into 
the flame was prevalent. The use of such fires was, however, discour- 
aged by a class of planters, whose opinions were thus expressed by a 
writer in De Bow's Eeview: 

I havo tried this remedy, and have remained in my cotton field after dark to watch 
the effects of. the fire on these flies. I did not see as many destroyed as I expected 
■when I took into consideration the quantity I knew to be in the field. The most of 
those I saw approaching the fire seemed to be rei)elled or diverged off on nearing it, 
or they would rebound high above it and escape destruction. On seeing this I came 
to the conclusion that the heat of the large fires extended too far around, and that 
they felt it, and turned oft" before being near enough to be destroyed. 

As a result of this belief and of the evident fact that, unless gener- 
ally practiced, a fire upon one plantation would serve only to attract 
moths from neighboring plantations, concentrating them upon one crop, 
the custom has fallen into disuse. 



EXPERIENCE WITH TRAP-LANTERNS. 263 

The first of these objections canuot be urged, however, against the 
use of trap-lanterns. As a good instance of the success of these last, 
we quote the following from the monthly reports of this department for 
1867: 

Parish of Jefferson, Louisiana. — Allow me to call your attention to the destruction of 
the cotton crop by the worms, which appear to increase yearly. In 1864 I planted 
about 100 acres in cotton. In July the worms made their appearance. Having no 
experience in raising this crop, I searched in the agricultural reports for information. 
Mr. Glover recommended the burning of trap-lanterns, and I made three of them 
with a coal-oil lamp and tin basin, with soapsuds underneath, and burned them every 
night. The first night I caught about 75 millers and iuniimerable other insects. The 
number increased to 300 millers, and then gradually diminished to none. For three 
weeks after the crops of my neighbors were destroyed, I found only a few of my plants 
attacked ; about the last week of the three I caught no millers, but all at once the 
catch was 75; next night 150, then 300, and even up to 500. The worm, however, 
gradually made its appearance more and more, until, in the middle of August, my 
cotton was stripped of every leaf and bloom. The worm then turned into pupa. In 
ten days after this the miller again appeared. Meanwhile the cotton had sprouted 
again and was in full bloom, when the third brood made its ai)pearance in immense 
numbers. In three days every leaf and young boll was eaten, and the worm was 
eating the bark of the plant and the glazed protection of the nearly matured bolls. 
The heavy rains of September soaked into the bolls and rotted them. I made only 3 
bales of cotton. In July the prospect was good for at least 75 bales. 

My opinion is that if every planter would commence burning a lantern in each five 
acres, from the latter part of June to the middle of September, for a few years in suc- 
cession, both the boll- worm and the cotton-worm would be destroyed. The boll-worm 
destroys about one-half the crop with us. This year none of my neighbors raise cot- 
cotton. I have planted about five acres, and shall burn one lamp, and inform the de- 
partment of the result. Cost of lantern and basin about $1.50, and the oil will not 
cost over .$1, so that if the increase is only 10 pounds to the acre it will more than 
pay the expense. The first night I used the lantern on a barrel, but the insects were 
alive in the morning, and it was considerable trouble to kill them. Afterwards I used 
the soajjsuds, as it killed all the insects at once. 

The following extract from a letter of Mr. E. A. Schwarz possesses 
interest in this connection : 

Col. C. Lewis, of Hearne, Tex., after experimenting for a long time with more or 
less complicated contrivances to attract by light, and at the same time to kill the cot- 
ton-moth, concluded finally that the following simple ajiparatus is the most efl"ective 
and cheapest. As now in use, this apparatus consists of three pieces : 1st, a shallow 
tin pan (IG by 10 inches) ; 2d, a common kerosene-lamp, with a half-inch wick, and 
large enough to burn the whole night ; 3d, a common lantern, ojien below, which is 
put over the lamj) to protect it from wind and rain. The lamp is put in the middle of 
the pan and prevented from sliding by three pi eces of tin fastened on the bottom of 
the pan. This apparatus is put on top of a post, about 6 feet high, in the field. Before 
dark the lamps are made ready, the pans about half filled with water, and about one 
tablespoonful of kerosene is put on the water. 

To put this kerosene on the water is the most important part, and the colouel experi- 
mented with all sorts of chemicals — alcohol, camphor, iodine, &c. — without finding 
anything which would kill the moths, which, attracted by the light of the lamp, fly 
against the lantern and fall finally into the water. Kerosene alone proved most etfec- 
tive in killing these moths. The lamps are left burning in dark nights the whole night 
over, but are, of course, of but little use at full moon. In the morning the pans are 
emptied and the lamps extinguished. Colonel Lewis believes that one lamp for each 



264 REPORT UPON COTTON INSECTS. 

5 acres is sufficient. One man can attend to 500 acres. Tlie cost of a lamp (■which is 
manufactured by H. K. Davis &, Co., Hearne, Tex.) is 50 cents, but will last, of course, 
for many years. The cost of burning one lamp and labor amounts to 35 cents per 
month. Colonel Lewis put his lamps out last year the 20th or 25th of June, and had 
them in use about sis weeks, with interruptions caused by clear moonlight nights. 
Almost all the large farmers used these lanterns last year, and it is estimated that in 
the bottom-lands near Hearne more than 1,000 lanterns were out in 1878, which is 
the first year in which this method of killing the millers has been tried on a large 
scale, and it is not possible to say anything that is definite regarding its value. There 
has been last year no j)oisoning of the worms carried on whatever in this section, 
notwithstanding the crop was a fair one — about one bale per acre. 

Myriads of the cotton-moths have been killed, of course, by this method, and it ap- 
pears certain that it proved most efiectual against the ravage of the boll-worm, which 
in 1877 did more harm here than Aletia (the cotton crop in 1877 was here a perfect 
failure, owing to the combined ravages of Aletia and Heliotliis), and which was killed 
in great numbers by this method. Before the introduction of the method just des- 
cribed, the large planters in the bottom-lands tried to poison the worms, but with lit- 
tle success. 

The method described above to destroy the cotton-moth is, in my opinion, superior 
to all similar methods and to all applications of poisons ; but the lanterns ought to be 
lighted up at the beginning of May, if not earlier, and not toward the end of June. 

The following extract from Mr. Trelease's report give the results of his 
observations upon this point : 

From what has been said in the earlier agricultural reports, and from the testimony 
of planters as to the attraction of light for these moths, I had supposed that the easiest 
and most scientific method of destroying Aletia Avas to employ fires into which they 
should be attracted, or lights in combination with some form of trap, either with or 
without the added attraction of food ; these to be used whenever the moths were fly- 
ing, and their use enforced, if necessary, by legislation. Considering, for the above 
reasons, that the fondness of these moths for light was proved, I made no efforts to ob- 
tain personal demonstration of the fact ; and it was only on learning how many species 
of moths and even of other insects may pass for Aletia with the ordinary observer, and 
on seeing from my notes how little attention was paid to the light of my lantern, that 
I began to doubt the efficacy of this remedy ; but this, unfortunately, was after I had 
left the field. As it is, I can only say that the number attracted to lights, as compared 
with the entire number, was very small, so far as my experience goes. Though I saw 
a few dozen attracted into the house, thousands were within sight of the light and 
removed but a few rods ; while for each of those thus attracted a dozen individuals 
belonging to other species came to the light. My own observation, then, goes to show 
that these moths are not attracted to any great extent by lights ; but if this attraction . 
should be proven to be considerable, this would prove one of the best ways of dealing 
with the pest. 

On the whole, the conclusion at which we arrived in regard to the 
use of the lanterns is much the same as that which we have stated of 
poisoned sweets. Early in the spring and late in the fall they should 
be tried. Their use in the months between June and October will de- 
pend upon how efficacious other remedies have been, and upon the 
actual success of the trap used. In the seasons mentioned first the 
planter must not be discouraged at the small proportion of cotton- 
moths to other moths, remembering the fact, which we have so often 
reiterated, of the immense economic importance of every hibernating 



TRAr-LANTERN OF B. F. m'qUEEN. 



265 



individual. It is well, also, W bear in mind that almost without excep- 
tion the other moths w^hich are thus captured are more or less injurious 
to vegetation. 

We will here illustrate some of the more practical moth-trap lanterns 
which have been patented. 

There have been a large number of moth-traps patented, which are 
made upon the plan of i)lacing 
a light above a pan containing 
fluid, which may be either viscid 
or i)oisoned. The moths at- 
tracted by the light fall into the 
pan, and are thus destroyed. 

The following figures and de- 
scriptions illustrate a number 
of the more simply constructed 
and more practical of these in- 
ventions. 

The patent of B. F. McQueen, 
No. IGO, 124, July 27, 1875, con- 
sists of a lantern, pan, and re- 
flector : 

A represents an ordinary lantern, 
constructed in any of the known and 
usual ways. Around the base of this 
lantern is attached a shallow basin, 
B, of any suitable dimensions — say, 
for instance, thirteen inches in diam- 
eter and two inches deep. Immedi- 
ately below this basin, and attached 
to it, is a tube, C, of proper dimen- 
sions, to facilitate the using of the 
lantern in the field, by being placed 
on the post or stake. At the top of 
the lantern is a horizontal screen, D, 
of tin, forming a reflector to economize 
the light by throwing it outward. 




Fig. 65. — B. F. McQueen's trap-lantern. 



Another and important object and effect of this reflector is to precipitate the insects 
into the pan below. Many of the insects will flutter, and ascend the sides of the 
lamp with considerable rapiditj^, thus coming in contact with the reflector and 
causing them to fall into the pan, which contains water, sirup, or some other suit- 
able liquid for destroying them. 

The advantage claimed for this invention is that the light is equally 
diffused in all directions, thus alluring more insects than it would were 
the light partially obstructed. 

Fig. 66 is a representation of the invention of Mr. James G. G. 
Garrett, of Port Gibson, Miss., No. 133,023, November 12, 1872. In his 
letters patent Mr. Garrett says : 

This invention relates to that class of devices for destroying or catching nocturnal 
insects which consist essentially of a dish or pan containing molasses or other sticky 
substance and a lamp, the light of which decoys the insects into the pan. All such 



266 



REPORT UPON COTTON INSECTS. 



traps uaw in use arc provided with bails or similar contrivances for the purpose of 
suspending them where wanted. They are thus subject to be oscillated or even over- 
turned by the wind, causing the spilling 
of the substance in the pan — essential 
to the proper operation of the trap — 
and often, also, the extinguishment of 
the lamp or lantern. Susjiending such a 
trap in fruit-trees is not so objection- 
able, because it is protected by the foli- 
age against violent oscillations ; but 
when used in open tields of growing 
crops, such as cotton, tobacco, &c., it 
becomes a very serious drawback, to 
remedy which is the object of my inven- 
tion. To this end my improvement con- 
sists iu rigidly seciiring the pan and its 
lamp or lantern to a stake of proper 
length, providing a device, complete in 
itself, especially adapted for use in open 
fields of growing crops, and not liable 
to serious interference from high winds. 
The figure is a side view, partly in 
section. 

A is a stake driven into the ground, 
and to the upper end of which is nailed 
or otherwise securely attached a board 
or plank, B, which should be about 
eighteen inches, nfore or less, across. 
Upon the plank B is placed a sheet-iron 
pan, C, about eighteen inches across and 
two inches deep. In the center of the 
pan C is placed a block or support, D, 
about two inches high, ui)on which is 
set an ordinary lantern, E. The lantern 
E is secured in place by being connected 
with the edges of the plank B by two or 
more cords, F. 

This device is set among the plants 
to be protected, is lighted about dark, 
and enough coal-tar, molasses, or other 
suitable viscous material is poured into the pan C to a little more than cover its bot- 
tom. The insects vrill be attracted by the light, and flying toward it, will fall into the 
pan C, and being unable to esca]ie from it will be destroyed. One or more of these 
devices should be used for each acre pf the field to be protected. 

Another lamp and pan apparatus was invented and patented by 
Jesse R. Duke, of Norristown, Ark. It consists of a pan of sheet-metal, 
having a tube or socket rising from the center of the bottom, which sup- 
ports a lamp projecting above the top of the pan ; the lamp having in- 
clined sides and a very narrow or sharp top. 

In the following cut, 1 is a i^erspective view of the invention, and 2 is a 
side elevation, partly in section. 

A is a sheet-metal pan, and B is a tube or socket rising from the center of the bot- 
tom thereof. This tube or socket is soldered water-tiiiht around a hole in the bottom 




Fig. 66. — J. G. G. Garrett's trap-lantern. 



TKAP-LA.NTEKNS OF J. R. DUKE AND J. R. STEPHENS. 267 



of the pan. C is a lamp, having a cross-section of the shape of au isosceles triangle 
with a narrow base Avhich gives the sides of the lamp a steep slope. E are burners, 
and d and e are reflectors. F is the stake upon 
which the apparatus is placed when in use, 
said stake fitting through the hole in the 





Fig. 67. — Lamp and pan apparatus of J. R. Duke. 

V 

bottom of the pan and into socket B. There is a socket in the center of the lamp 
also, and into this tits the socket B. The lainjj_^may be removed for filling or cleansing. 

To use the invention the 
stake should be driven in the 
ground, the apparatus placed 
upon it. At night the burn- 
ers of the lamp being lighted 
will attract the moths, which, 
being scorched in the flame, 
will fall upon the steeply in- 
clined sides of the lamp and 
slide off into the fluid in the 
pan. — [ Patent No. 193643, 
dated July 31, 1877.] 

The following is the in- 
vention of Mr. John R. /I 
Stephens, of Lone Star, 
Miss. It consists in con- 
structing- a vessel of suit- 
able material for holding 

, 11 T 1 i- Fig. 68. — Trap-lantern of J. R. Stephens. 

a strong alkahne solution ^ ^ 

nf li A ^ • 1 ' Tl ■« '•p A is a circular vessel with the bottom a, to the cen- 

ter of which is fastened the lamp B. g g are the two 
sel should be made Circu- gy^^^ fastened to the rim of the vessel A, and serve as 
lar, in the form of a bowl, holders for the handle H and the ring K, by which 
The dejlth of this vessel the moth-trap* is suspended. [Patent No. 188434, 
depends upon the height dated January 31, 1867.] 
of a lamj) which is fastened to the center of the bottom of the vessel. 

*Mr. Stephens's patent has also the standards J) b io support the ring D, which is 
attached to the A-essel for the purpose of carrying the portable shade E, to be used 
when the trap is employed for catching the bee-moth, for the purpose of not disturbing 
the bees. 




268 



REPORT UPON COTTON INSECTS. 



To the rim of the vessel are fastened two eyes, one opposite tlie other, 
ser%ing to hold a handle and a ring, by which the trap is susiiended 
when in nse. 

It will be readily understood that the moths, insects, flies, &c., are 
attracted by the light to the trap, and will drop into the alkaline solu- 
tion of lime or lye, where they are killed. 

This alkahne solution of lime or lye is filled iuto the vessel and kept 
nearly up to the lamp-wick regulator. 

Mr. Eichard Pitman, of West Point, Iowa, has patented a moth-trap 
which consists simply of a lantern constructed with open sides, through 
which the insects are enticed by the flames, aud either die by scorch- 
ing or through the means of jioisoned fluid which surrounds the base of 
the lamp. 





Fig. G9. — Trap-lantern of R. I'itmau. 

1 is a persi)ective view of the trap ; 2 is a central vertical section of 
the same. 

The trap is constructed of a frame, A, similar to that used ordinarily in flat-sided 
lanterns, and in substantially the same manner, and may be square or otherwise poly- 
gonal in form. In the slides, wherein glasses are usually inserted, are placed slides 
constructed of stationary slats, a (which should be made of tin or other bright metal), 
placed horizontally parallel to each other, at a downward inclination of about fifty 
degrees, so that the lower edge of each slat a shall fall below a horizontal plane ex- 



C. R. DUDLEY S LANTERN. 



269 



1. 



tended from the upper edge of the next slat below, and thus break the course of a 

direct current of air, and protect the light from extinguishment thereby. Sufficient 

space is left between each slat to admit the ready 

passage into the trap of moths and other insects 

alighting thereon, while the outward inclination 

of the slats presents an obstruction to their 

egress. 

The trap so constructed may be used as an or- 
dinary lantern during the winter season by sub- 
stituting glass slides for the open slats. The 
reflection of light from the bright surface of the 
slats presents greater attraction to the insects 
than a simple light. The back part or one of the 
sides of the lantern may be left closed or solid, 
as shown in figure 2 of the di'awings, to afford 
protection to the light from wind coming from 
any given quarter. [Patent No. 62563, dated 
March 5, 1867.] 

Mr. Charles E. Dudley, of Canton, 
Miss., has invented a rather novel moth- 
trai), which, in addition to lami) and pan, 
has a vane so constructed as to keei? the 
light always sheltered from the wind. 

1 is a sectional view of the invention ; 
2 is a perspective view of the same. 

A is a conical chamber; B, a partition- 
wall that supports the 
reflector C behind the 
lamp D. E is a vat sur- 
rounding the lamp D. F 
is a wind-feather that 
shifts the whole struc- 
ture as a weather-vane, 
so that the lamp D will 
always be shielded from 
the wind. In turning it 
moves on a pivot, G, at 
the top of a pole, H, the 
pole passing into the 
socket I, which fits it 
loosely, i is metal, glass, 
or other substance, 
which prevents the 
weight of the machine from causing the point G to pierce the bottom 
of chamber A in using it. 

The lamp D, for coal-oil or other burning fluid, is provided with a 
wick-tube so as to throw a bright flame in front of the reflector C. This 
attracts the moths, which are destroyed by falUng into the vat E of 
sweetened vinegar, tincture of valerian, and tincture of myrrh, or other 





YiG. 70.— C. R. Dudley's lantern. 



270 



REPORT UPON COTTON INSECTS. 



attractive substance. This structure is mounted on a pole sufficiently 
liigli to reach above to tops of the cotton-plants, and is so sensitively 
poised on a pivot, G, as to turn with the slightest pressure of the wind 
against the wind-feather F. The wind-shield J stops the current about 
the light, so that it will burn always with a bright flame. 

The lamp and the reflector are both removable for the purpose of till- 
ing with oil or of cleaning. — [Patent 134130, dated December 24, 1872. 

Fig. 71 represents a vertical 
longitudinal section of the in- 
vention of Mr. George C. Cran- 
ston, of South Bend, Ind. 

A represents a circular tin 
vessel, the sides of which may 
be one or more inches in height. 
B is a receptacle for the oil, 
or such other material as may 
be used for giving light. 

This receptacle is furnished 
with wick-tube C, which may be 
divided in several wick-cham- 
bers, for the j)urpose of difliis- 
ing as much light as possible 
when the device is in actual use. 
b b represent two pieces of 
metal, bent at right angles, and secured to the bottom of vessel A, at 
or near its center, so as to form a recess, or groove, as shown in the 
drawing. 

The lower portion, or. foot of lamp, or receptacle B, is ijrovided with 
projecting sides, or flanges, and so arranged as to slide in gTooves just 
mentioned. 

The vessel A is supplied with a suitable bail, D, by which it is sus- 
pended in the branch of a tree.— [Patent No. 88140, dated March 23, 
1869. 

Fig. 72 shows the device of Mr. Edward D. Pugh, of Fort Plaine, 
Iowa. 

A A represent a shallow sheet-metal pan, which may vary in form 
and size to correspond with the form and size of the case. It must, 
however, always be larger than the case and extend outside and beyond 
the case which is x^laced therein. B B B is the glass and sheet-metal 
case. It may vary in form and size, as desired. The bottom is sheet 
metal, and has a number of perforations or holes punched in to venti- 
late. It has short feet attached on the under side and near the corners 
to keep it above the liquid placed in the pan. The frame is made of 
sheet metal and in the form of a sash, so as readilj^ to receive and hold 
the panes of glass, a a represents part of the frame, near the middle of 
its elevation and extending entirely around the case, with tubes attached 




Fig. 



Cranston's lantern. 



E. D. PUGH S LANTERN. 



271 



on the inside and apertures communicating with the outside, h h are 
the tubes attached on the inside. These are usually about one-half inch 
in diameter, made of metal, and may vary in diameter and length to suit 
the bottles to be placed upon them. The number of tubes and bottles 
used may vary from one to twenty or more. The dotted lines indicate 
how a second tier of tubes and bottles may be introduced. C is a sheet- 
metal cover corresponding in form and size with the case, and can be 
readily lifted off and on. It has a chimney or opening in the top 
and center to allow the smoke and heat of the lamp to escape. It is 
held in place by means of hooks or other suitable catches. The top may 
be fixed and stationary, and one of the sides of the case, or a section 
thereof, may be hinged so as to admit the bottles and lamp ; but, for 




Fig. 72.— E. D. Pugh's lantern. 

economy in construction and convenience in use, it is preferable to make 
the top in the form of a movable or hinged cover. D is a portable 
lamp, that is lighted and placed in the case to operate the trap. Any 
suitable form of lamp or candlestick may be used to provide the light 
that is required. E represents a long-necked common bottle placed on 
one of the tubes h on the inside of the case. These bottles may vary in 
form and size and number, as desired. 

To operate the trap, put honey and wax or other suitable bait into the 
bottles and then place the bottles on the tubes b on the inside of the 
case. Set the case in the center of the pan A A and partly fill the pan 
with soapsuds or some other liquid that will destroy insects that fall into 
it. Place the lighted lamp or its equivalent in the case and set the trap 
wherever desired. The moth and other insects mil be attracted by the 
light and fly against the glass. Many will fall into the liquid in the pan 
and perish. Those that alight safely on the sides of the case Avill be 
attracted by the bait in the bottles and will pass through the apertures 



272 



REPORT UPON COTTON INSECTS. 




Fig. 73.- 



-Byrne & Struuk's trap-lan- 
tern. 



and tubes and into the bottles, where they will remain until removed 
and destroyed.— [Patent No. 130390, dated August 13, 1872.] 

Mr. Thomas Byrne, of I^ew York City, and Mr. Deidrich Strunk, of 
Lavaca, Tex., have invented a trap so arranged that the light is strongly 

reflected in the liquid, hoping by this 
device to attract and destroy a greater 
number of moths. 

A represents an open vessel, which is 
adapted for containing carbolic acid, 
coal-tar, or any other liquid which will 
destroy insects. 

Within this vessel and centrally ar- 
ranged is a lamj), B, which is secured 
fast to the bottom of the vessel, and con- 
structed with a rim on its top for receiv- 
ing and keeping in place a chimney, C. 
The chimney, which is of glass or other 
transparent material. Consists of a con- 
tracted tubular portion, d, a contracted 
base portion, a, and two conical portions, 
J) c, united at their bases. 
Ujion this chimney is a funnel-shaped chimney, D, consisting of a 
downwardly-flaring portion, e, a tubular portion,/, and a cap or hood, g. 
This chimney D is made of metal or other suitable opaque substance, 
and the inner side of its base or flaring i:>ortion e is ])lated or otherwise 
polished so as to afford a good reflecting surface which will not readily 
tarnish. 

At night, after the lamp is lighted, the device is mounted upon a post 
or suspended from a bush in any conspicuous place, where it will be 
visible to surrounding insects. 

All that portion of the device above the lower edge of the chimney D 
will be dark, and the rays of light will be reflected downwardly and out- 
wardly into the liquid in the vessel A beneath, thus illuminating the 
liquid, and also that portion of the transparent chimney which is be- 
low the lower edge of the opaque chimney D. 

This portion h of the chimney C being illuminated, made of glass or 
other smooth substance and inclined, it operates to throw down into the 
liquid beneath the insects which fly against it. 

Instead of securing the lamp to the pan A this lamp and its chimneys 
may be suspended above the pan or other suitable vessel containing 
liquid. 

It is obvious that the portions c and d of the chimney C might be dis- 
pensed with in the manufacture of tliis insect-destroyer, by fitting the 
lower edge of the deflector directly to the upper edge of the deflecting 
portion C— [Patent No. 109869, dated December 6, 1870.] 
A lantern patented by Mark Eigels, of Newton, Ala, is provided with 



MARK EIGEL8 LANTERN. 



273 



projecting, round, or oblong windows, arranged around it so as to throw 
the rays of light in all directions, and with a subjacent circular dish to 
receive some liquid. It also consists in the application thereto of a 
series of vertical plates, one arranged between each pair of windows, to 
serve as reflectors for spreading the light, and also as guides to conduct 
the insect down into the liquid. It also consists in cup-shaped windows, 
made round or oblong and detachable, so as to be conveniently and easily 
cleaned. 




Fig. 74. — Mark Kigels' lauteru. 

A represents the body of the lantern, which is preferably made round 
and provided on its sides with the projecting windows B, which may be 
made round or oblong, as shown, and with glass or metallic sides. is 
a circular dish placed about the bottom and top of lantern bod}^, and 
above and beneath the windows. The device operates very well with 
the lower dish only. D is a series of vertical plates or reflectors. When 
the projecting windows are made of glass the light strikes laterally 
ui)on these plates and is reflected in many directions. The windows 
B will need to be cleaned at suitable intervals, and to facilitate this 
operation I make each of them in two parts, h h', one of which is easily 
slipped over the other or removed therefrom. 

The operation of this device is as follows: The lantern is placed im 
18 CI 



274 



REPORT UPON COTTON INSECTS. 



locations where insects aboujid, when they are attracted by the light 

from all sides. Myriads fly toward and against the lantern and vertical 

plates, when they are precipitated into the liquid and drowned.— [Patent 

Ko. 13536G, dated January 28, 1873. 

The following communication and figure was recently received at the 

department : 

25 Grant Place, 

Washington, D. C, October —, 1879. 
Dear Sir : I inclose lierewith drawing aiifl doscriptiou of a tested cotton-worm 
exterminator, for the consideration and nse of your entomologist. 

I will l»e pleased to present Mr. Hnstou's letter referred to, if required, or to do 
anything further desired of me in the premises. 
I am, sir, yours, very respeetfully, 

J. >ST1TH. 
Hon. W. G. Lk Due, 

Conimisfiioiu'r of .Ujiicnltnrc, City. 

8tith\s Cotton -worm Exterminator.* — This exterminator is of the class 

which hues to self-destruc- 
tion the mother moth on 
her first flight to deposit 
the worm-producing egg, 
audits essential peculiari- 
ties are, 1, a day and night 
jg attractor lantern, and, 2, 
such embaying of the lan- 
tern side that the approach- 
ing moth falls a more cer- 
tain prey into the usual 
trap-basin below. 

In the cut, A, and A, are sides 
of the attractor-lantern ; these 
sides are of opal glass which by 
day is brilliant white and in 
twilight or by night, lighted by 
a lamp within, is most attract- 
ively luminous ; each pane of 
the lantern is flanked by an out- 
reaching catch-wing B, against 
which, or against a lantern face 
itself, one or the other, the 
moth, attracted by thi' lantern and lured as well by an odorous bait below, precipitated 
itself according to its habit of flying to or of passing close alongside of a brilliant 
object; a cover C, projecting well over all, prevents upward escape even if elsewise 
possible to its now violently arrested flight, and all below lies a trap basin D, charged 
to a suitable depth with the common enticing bait and eflectual death-bath as well, 
of sweetened water and vinegar, poisoned with cobalt. Centrally up from the basin's 
bottom rises a conical socket to cap securely on to a stake so planted firmly afield 
as to hold the exterminator just sightable above the general surface of the crop foliage. 
The opal panes may be advantageously tinged with a trace of pink, to better simu- 

*Mr. W. II. Huston (Sclma, Ala.), who has thoroughly tested this externuuator in 
the cotton-field, reports that it will atlract and safehj capture every hu/j or Jly, of ^very 
descrij)tiov , that comes ivithin its range. J- S. 




Fig. 75. — J. Stith's lantern. 



J. stith's lantern. 275 

late the color of the young cottou l)loom ; the catch-wings, the under side of the cover, 
and the inside of the basin are to be of cotton-leaf green, and all other visible parts a 
quiet earth-color; the lanterns are to be of such size and so disposed that one may be 
readily sighted and sought from any direction within the field or approaching it. The 
exterminator is to remain baited and posted day and night, the lamp to be lighted as 
quietly as possible before twilight, and charged to surely burn the whole night 
through ; its use to begin before the first moth of the season may be reasonably ex- 
pected, and to continue till the last-belated straggler is surely gone. Operations, 
however thorough, confined to a limited area, unless absolutely secluded, can give 
only partial relief. 

To secure specimens of other "fly-by-nights," fit a wire gauze floor a little below 
the rim of the basin, and place beneath it a sponge saturated with chloroform. 



CHAPTER VIII. 

BIBLIOGRAPHY OF THE COTTON WORM. 

[This bibliography does not pretend to be comi)lete. It contains all 
of the papers which have been consulted in the preparation of this part 
of the report, and, in all probability, almost all articles of value that 
have ever been published on the subject. Still, a subject of so great 
economic importance must necessarily have had a vast newspaper litera- 
ture, which the work of many years could hardly collect and classify ; 
and, therefore, we have confined ourselves to the principal scientific and 
agricultural periodicals.] 

Danijjl McKinnen. Tour through the British West Indies in 1802-'3 ; 
Giving a Particular Account of the Bahama Islands. London, 1804. 

Gives an account of the ravages of the chenille on Acklin's Island, Bahamas, 
and also of the appointing of a commission by the general assembly of the 
islands, in 1801, to investigate the causes for the repeated failure of the cotton 
crop, the principal cause being the ravages of the chenille. 

Bryan Edwards. History, Civil and Commercial, of the British Col- 
onies in the West Indies. Phila., 1805-'0. 

Contains an account of the ravages of the chenille in the West Indies in 1788 
and 1794. 

Jacob Hubner. Zutrjige zur Sammlung exotischer Schmetterlinge, 
bestehend in Bekundigung einzelner Fliegrauster neuer oder rarer 
nicht europaischer Gattuugen, Augsburg, Verfasser. 1818-1823. 
Centur. II. 

Contains the original description of Aletia aryillacea. For co^iy see cbapter- 
terl. 

Thomas Say^. Correspondence relative to the Insect that destroys the 
Cotton Plant. 

Southern Agriculturalist, I, p. "203, 1827 {not rerified). 

Noctua xylina. ]^ew Harmony Disseminator, 1830. 

Beimpr. Transactions of the Agricultural Society of the St-ate of l^ew 

York. 185G. 
Beimpr. Say's Entomology of Korth America, Ed. Le Conte. Vol. I 
pp. 369-371, 1850. 

Consists of a letter from C. W. Capers to Thomas Sd-y, transmitting speci- 
mens of the cotton-worm, and Say's reply, describing the insect as Xoctiia 
xylina. 

Dr. Chisholm. Sir David Brewster's Edinburgh Cyclopedia, article 
Cotton. Edinburgh, 1830. 

Draws up a description of the chenille in Latin. Gives an extended account 
of its habits as observed by him in Demerara (British Guiana) in 1801-'2, and 
proposes, as a remedy, fumigation with sulphur. 
276 



BIBLIOGRAPHY. 277 

Andrew Ure, M. D., F. E. S. History of the Manufacture of Cotton. 
London, 1836. 

On pages 156 and 174 of vol. i. are given accounts of the chenille in Britisli 
Guiana, and on the Sea Islands of Georgia (sliort and of little value). 

Whitemarsh B. Seabrook. a Memoir on the Origin, Cultivation, 
and Uses of Cotton, from the Earliest Ages to the Present Time, with 
Especial Eeference to the Sea Island Cotton Plant, including the Im- 
provements in its Cultivation, and the Preparation of the Wool, &c., 
in Georgia and South Carolina. Eead before the Agricultural Society 
of Saint Johns, Colleton, November 13, 1843, and the State Agricul- 
tural Society of South Carolina, December 6, 1843, and by both soci- 
eties ordered to be published. Charleston, 1844. 

On pages 42-45 is a short historical sketch of the "caterpillar (Noctua xylina)," 
with an account of the methods used in Colleton County to exterminate them; 
also some remarks upon the natural history of the insect. 

Thomas Affleck. Destruction of the Cotton Crop by Insects. Amer- 
ican Agriculturist, vol. v, p. 341, September, 1846. 

A short historical account of the cotton-worm, with a description of the state 
of affairs in Mississippi in August, 1846, and remarks upon the natural history 
of the insect. In this article Mr. Affleck first formulates the migration theory. 

Wheelock S. Upton. The Cotton Caterpillar. DeBow's Eeview, ii, 
1846, p. 354. 

Advises soaking seeds of cotton in a solution of bluestone as a preventive. 

Anon. Cotton Caterpillar. Southern Cultivator, 1846, p. 157. 

Anon. The Cotton Moth. American Agriculturist, 1847, p. 22. 
Remarks upon Mr. Affleck's paper of September, 1846. 

D. B. GoRHAM, M. D. The Cotton Worm, its History, Character, Vis- 
itations, &c. DeBow's Commercial Eeview, iii, j). 535, 1847. 

Eeimpr. Southern Cultivator, 1847, p. 114. 

Contains an account of previous visitations of the cotton-worm, and extended 
remarks upon its natural history. Proclaims the migration theory in full and 
gives arguments for it. Draws up a description of Pimpla conquisitor (the first 
mention of a parasite on the cotton-worm). 

Anon. The Cotton Worm, its History, Character, Visitations, &c. 
Southern Cultivator, 1847, p. 137. 

Editorial answer to Dr. Gorham's theory. 

P. WiNFREE. The Cotton Caterpillar. De Bow's Eeview, 1847, vol. iv, 
p. 25]. 

Brings up arguments against Dr. Gorham's theory. Gives personal experience 
with the cotton-worm in the Bahamas a few years previous. 

M. W. Philips. The Cotton Worm. Southern Cultivator, 1848, p. 28. 

Quite an extended article, giving a description of the larva and chrysalis. 

Edward Doubleday. Transactions of the London Entomological So- 
ciety, 1848. Proceedings, p. 33. 

Mentions having received the American cotton-moth from T. W. Harris, and 
states that it belongs to no European genus, coming nearest to OpMusa. 



278 REPORT UPON COTTON INSECTS. 

Anon. Destroying the Cotton Moth. Southern Cultivator, vol. viii, p. 
132, 1850. 

Advocates "sugaring" for the moth Avith molasses and vinegar. 

Thomas Affleck. The Cotton Moth — OpMusa f [Noctua) xylina. Af- 
fleck's Southern Eural Almanac and Plantation and Garden Calendar 
for 1851 (published at the office of the Picayune, ]!^ew Orleans), pp^ 
49, 50. 

Quotes from a letter from Harris ; gives arguments for the hibernation of the 
moth J describes the egg accurately ; figures larva, chrysalis, and moth, and also- 
figures an ichneumonid parasite, in all probability Fimpla conqwisitor. 

Anon ("McG"). Diseases of the Cotton Plant and their Eemedy. De 
Bow's Eeview, vol. xi, p. 7, 1857. 

T. W. Harris. A Treatise on some of the Insects of New England,, 
which are injurious to Vegetation. Boston, 2d Edition, 1852, p. 457. 
A very brief account of Noctua xylina, Say. 

A. GuENEE. Sp6cies general des Lepidopteres ; les Noctu61ites, vol. ii,. 
p. 400, 1852 ; ibid., p. 401 ; ibid., vol. iii, p. 397, 1852. 

lu vol. ii, p. 400, the cotton-worm moth is described as Anomis grandipunctaf 
on page 401 it is again described as Anomis bipuncHna ; and again, in vol. iii, 
p. 397, under the latter ii;.mo (see Chapter I). 

B. C. L. Wailes. The Cotton Plant, its Origin and Varieties, and its 
Enemies and Diseases. In Wailes' Agriculture and Geology of Mis- 
sissipi, first report, 1854, pp. 14G-148. 

A short sketch of the cotton-worm, which ho calls Depressaria gossypiodes^ 
Advises, as a remedy, attracting the moth by lires. 

W. I. Burnett, M. D. The Cotton Worm of the Southern States. 
Proceedings of the Boston Society of Natural History, vol. iii, pp. 
316-319. 

A short account of the insect, mostly from hearsay. Proposes the migration 
theory. 

Anon. The Cotton Worm, its Character, Habits, &c. De Bow's Ee- 
view, vol. xvii, pp. 451-459, 1854. 

J. H. Zimmerman, M. D. The Cotton Worm, its Character, Habits^ 
&c. American Cotton Planter, August, 1855 (from De Bow's Eeview). 

Gives an account of the metamorphoses of the cotton -worm and boll-worm. 
Advises as remedies rotation of crops and sugaring for the moths. 

TowNEND Glover. The Cotton Caterpillar {Noctua xylina). Annual 
Eeport of the Commissioner of Patents (Agriculture), 1855, pp. 71- 
76. 

Gives popular descriptions of all stages of the insect, and an historical account 
of its ravages. Details the remedies known. Figures all stages. 

M. D. Landon. The Cotton Caterpillar {Noctua xylina). Eeport of th& 
Commissioner of Agriculture, 1864, p. 90. 

A short account of the natural history of the insect, with figures of larva,, 
chrysalis, and moth. Advocates the hibernation of the moth. 



BIBLIOGRAniY. 279 

Aug. E. Grote. Proceedings of the Kutoniological Society of Philfi- 
delphia. Vol. iii, 18G4, p. 541. 

Announces the identity oi Noctua xylina, Say, and Anomis hipmictina, Guendo, 
proposes the name Anomu xylina, Say. 

Joseph B. Lyman. Cotton Planting. Eeport of the Commissioner of 
Agriculture, 1866, p. 193. 

Under the head of "Enei.iies of the cotton-plant, and how to destroy them," 
the cotton-moth is described. Advises sugaring for the moths, fires at night, 
catching the moths in hand-nets, and picking the leaves on which the eggs ar& 
deposited. 

B. D. Walsh. The Three So-called Army-worms. Practical Entomol- 
ogist, vol. ii, 1866, p. 112. 

TowNEND Glover. Insects Injurious to Cotton Plants. No. 3. Cotton 
Caterpillar, or Cotton Army-worm {Noctua Anomis) xylina (Say). 
Monthly Eeport of the Department of Agriculture, 1866, p. 331. 

Substantially the same article as that in the annual report for 1855 ; verj'- few 
changes. The larva is figiued in two positions, as also are the chrysalis an({ 
moth. 

George W. Morse. The Cotton Caterpillar. Monthly Eeports of the 
Department of Agriculture, 1867, p. 249. 

Advises that summary measures bo taken to destroy the first brood of worm* 
by offering a reward for the first worm, and as soon as that is found turning a 
force into the fields to search for them. 

James M. Ferguson. The Cotton Worm. Monthly Eeports of the 
Department of Agriculture, 1867, pp. 288, 289. 

Gives observations on the natural history of the cotton-worm, and offers the 
same advice as the preceding. 

TowNEND Glover. Eeport of the Commissioner of Agriculture, 1867, 
pp. 58-61. 

Describes the cotton-worm in all stages, with accurate figures. Speaks of the 
northward migration of the moths and of the great good done by the ants in 
destroying both the eggs and the larvae. Gives a popular description also of 
Pimpla conquisitor. 

Anon ("Zo?ios.") The Cotton Caterpillar. Southern Cultivator, 1868, 
p. 298. 

An account of the natural history of the insect. States that the last brood 
winters, in the chrysalis state, underground, and advises winter plowing. 

B. D. Walsh and C. V. Eiley. Entomological Ignorance in the 
South. American Entomologist, vol. i, 1868, pp. 14-16. 

A severe criticism of an article which was going the rounds of the Southern 
press headod, "How to destroy the Cotton Worm — a Suggestion." 

B. D. Walsh and C. V. Eiley. Cotton insects. The Cotton Army 
Worm Noctua \A7iomis] xylina^ Say. American Entomologist, i, 1868, 
pp. 209-212. 

An account of the transformations of the cotton-wonn, with figures and de- 
scription of each stage. Hand-picking, destroying the moths by fire, and 
sprinkling the plants with cresylic soap solution, are advised as remedies. 



280 REPORT UPON COTTON INSECTS. 

J). L. Phares, M. D. The Cotton Army Worm {Anomis xylina, Say.) 
American Entomologist, i, 18G8, p. 242. 

States that the iusect hibernates as a moth, and describes the egg. Advo- 
cates hand-i^icMng if it cau be done by concerted action on tho part of the 
planters. Advises also sngaring and fires in May or Juno. 

Joseph B. Lyman. Cotton Culture. Orange, Judd & Co. New York, 

1868. " The Cotton Moth," pp. 86-89. 

A short account of the metamorphoses with figures of the diftereut stages. 

T. W. Harris, M. D. Entomological Correspondence. Boston, 1869, 
p. 169. 

In a letter to Doubleday mentions having received specimens of the moth and 
asks for a generic determination. Date of letter October 24, 1846. 

Edward Doubleday. Entomological Correspondence of T. W. Harris. 
Boston, 1869, p. 173. 

In a letter to Harris dated April 2, 1847, states that the cotton-moth is near 
to Oplimsa but is a new genus. 

CoL. J. E. Galtney. The Cotton Army Worm. Southern Herald, 
Liberty, Mississippi, May and June, 1869. 

Nos. 1 and 2 are devoted to proving the hibernation of the insect in the chrys- 
alis state. No. .3 advises as remedies hand-picking, fires at night, sowing cas- 
tor-bean and cow-pea in the cotton-field, and late fall and winter plowing. 

Anon. The Caterpillar. Southern Cultivator, 1869, p. 13. 

Advocates hand-picking as the only sure remedy. 

Anon. The Cotton Worm. Southern Cultivator, 1869, p. 18. 
Advises the use of Dr. Heard's moth-trap. 

William Jones. Cut-worms and Caterpillars. Southern Cultivator, 

1869, pp. 106, 107. 

Editorial answer to questions about cotton worm. Arguments for the hiber- 
nation of the chrysalis, and notes on extensive parasitism of the last brood of 
worms. 

A. S. Packard, jr., M. D. Guide to the Study of Insects. Salem, 
1869, pp. 313-315. A. xylina. 

Short account of natural history and habits. 

Anon. The Cotton Caterpillar. Carolina Farmer, vol. i, 1868, p. 142. 

D. L. PnARES, M. D., A. M. The Cotton Caterpillar {Anomis xylina). 

Lecture delivered before the Farmers' Club of Woodville, Miss., May 

4, 1869 ; abstract published in Eural Carolinian, August, 1870, vol. i, 

pp. 683-695. 

This article is accompanied by a full page lithograph of cotton-stalk infested 
by larva, chrysalis, and adult, and engravings of the cotton-worm {Anomis 
xylina), the boll- worm {Heliothis armigera), and the grass-worm (Laphrygtna fru- 
gipcrda) in all stages. The article has tho following heads : History ; Will the Cat- 
erpillar Cause Cotton Culture to cease? Why is the Caterpillar worse some years? 
Errors; Proposed Modes of Destroying ; Propagation. 

William Jones. The Cotton Caterpillar. Southern Cultivator, 1870, 
p. 67. 

Editorial answer to letter from A. S. M., asking for information concerning 
cotton-worms. States that little is known, and dwells upon disputed point of 
hibernation. 



liII5LI0GRAPHY. 281 

O. V. KiLEY, M. A., Pii. D. The Cotton Army Worm {Anoniis xylina. 
Say). Second Annual Keport on the Noxious, Beneficial, and other 
Insects of the State of Missouri. 1870, pp. 37-41. 

An account of the habits and natural history of the insect Avith popular de- 
scriptions of all stages, and ligures of eggs, larva, chrysalis, and adult. 

J. Parish Stelle. Southern Notes. The Coming- Cotton Worm. 
American Entomologist and Botanist, vol. ii, 1870, p. 124. 

States that the worm is always worse after a mild winter. Gives differences 
between "grass worm" and cotton worm. 

F. G. H. Taylor. A Remedy for the Caterpillar. Southern Cultivator 
1871, p. 385. 

Advises the use of aiscnic in solution. 

Anon ("K"). How to destroy Caterpillars. Southern Farm and 
'Home, 1871, p. 135. 

Believes that the webs on trees through the winter contain the germs of the 
cotton worms. Hence advises to burn all such webs. 

E. H. Anderson, M. D. Cotton Caterpillars and their Habits. Rural 
Carolinian, ii, 1871, p. 695. 

a short review of the natiu-al history of the cotton worm, with notice of a 
longer paper soon to be brought out. 

C. R. Dodge. A Word about " Cotton Caterpillars." Rural Carolinian, 
vol. iii (1871), pp. 87, 88. 

Corrects statements in the last-mentioned paper. 

Aug. R. Grote. Anomis xylina. A Review. Rural Carolinian, iii 

(1871), pp. 88-92. 

An extended criticism of Doctor Anderson's paper. Gives a hint at the migra- 
tion theory which he elaborates in 1874. 

E. H. Anderson, M. D. More about Cotton Caterpillars. Rural Car- 
olinian, iii (1871), pp. 204-207. 

A controversial reply to Mr. Grote's criticisms. 

C. R. Dodge. Cotton Caterpillars — One Word More. Rural Caroli- 
nian, iii (1871), pp. 263, 264. 

Corrects statements in the last-mentioned paper. 

Aug. R. Grote. Dr. E. H. Anderson and Cotton Caterpillars. Rural 
Carolinian, iii (1871), pp. 308, 309. 

A review of Doctor Anderson's last paper. 

TowNEND Glover. Report of the Commissioner of Agriculture, 1871, 
pp. 83, 84. 

Gives an account of the occurrence of the worm in 1871, and speaks of a re- 
cently invented machine for sprinkling poisons. Advises strenuous efforts to 
destroy the first crop of worms. 

J. Parish Stelle. The Cotton Caterpillar. Southern Farm and 
Home, October, 1872, p. 457. From the Mobile Register of recent 
date. 

Gives an account of the insect's natural history and advises the use of Paris 
green in solution as a remedy. 

Anon. The Cotton Caterpillar {Anomis xylina.) Carolina Farmer, vol. 
iv, 1872, p. 278. 



282 REPORT UPON COTTON INSECTS. 

J. Parish Stelle. The Cotton Caterpillar. The Eural Alabamian, 

i, 1872, pp. 78-80. 

Arguments to prove that the ravages of the cottou Tvorm are worse after a 
severe winter than a mild one. A description of the moth and notes npou the 
habits of the worm. Hand-picking and fires are advised as remedies. 

TowNEND Glover. Keport of the Commissioner of Agriculture, 1872, 
pp. 118-120. 

An account of the ravages of the cotton worm in 1S72. 
C. V. EiLEY. Remedy for the Cotton Army-Worm. Proceedings of 
the American Agricultural CongTCSs ; Indianapolis meeting, 1873. 
Urgently advises the use of Paris green. 

J. Parish Stelle. The Cotton Caterpillar. All about how to save the 
Cotton Crop. Mobile Register, July 5, 1873. 

Gives figures of the insect and describes all stages, with a short account of 
habits. Strongly advises the use of Paris green. Quotes from Riley's paper 
and mentions the fact that he himself tried experiments the previous year with 
the poison. 

TowNEND Glover. Report of the Commissioner of Agriculture, 1873 j 
pp. 163-169. 

Gives a detailed account of the injuries of the cotton worm in 1873, and also 
summarizes the answers to a circular sent to Southern jjlanters in the fall of 
that year inquiring into the efficacy of Paris green as a remedy for the worm, 
and also making inquiry as to what other remedies had been used. The conclu- 
sion is in favor of the green. 

W. R. Howard. Anomis [N) xylina. Philip's Southern Farmer, vol. 
^ii, 1873, pp. 361, 362. 

Gives a short account of the natural history of the cotton worm, states at 
length the conflict of opinion on the subject of the hibernation of the insect, 
quoting the opinions of all the ])rominent writers, and asking all planters to 
try and solve the problem. 

TowNEND Glover. Monthly Reports of the Department of Agricul- 
tiu-e, 1874, p. 125. 

States his belief that the insect hibernates in the more southern portions of 
the cottou belt, and as the season advances migrates northward. 

Anojs. Cotton Worm. American Cyclopedia, 1874, vol. v, p. 419. 

A short article on the past history, natural history, habits, and remedies for 
the cotton worm. 

A. E. Beach. Remedy for the Cotton Worm. Science Record, 1874, 
pp. 370, 371. 

Paris green. 

A. R. Groi'e. The Cotton Worm. American Naturalist, 1874, p. 562. 

A. R. Grote. On the Cotton Worm of the Southern States {Aletia argil- 
lacea Hiibuer). Proceedings of the American Association for the Ad- 
vancement of Science, vol. xxiii, 1874. part ii, pp. 13-18. 

Reumpr. Hartford Courant, xxxviii, No. 195. 

Reimpr. (?). New York Tribune, extra No. 21, pp. 01, 02. 

Reimpr. American Naturalist, vol. viii, pp. 722-727. 

Habits and synonymy of the cotton worm. Proposes the migration theory. 



BIBLIOGRAPHY. 283 

W. P. Eeese, M. D. The Cotton Caterpillar Again. Eural Carolinian^ 
vol. V, 1874, pp. 565, 566. 

The cotton worm hibernates in the chrysalis state under leaves, &c., hence, 
as a remedy, burn leaves in fall. Also gives formula for use of Paris green in 
solution. 

J. Parish Stelle. The Cotton Caterpillar and how to Combat it Suc- 
cessfully. Eural Carolinian, vol. v, 1874, pp. 511-515. 

An account of habits, with descriptions and figures of the insect in aU stages. 
Advises the use of Paris green. Gives the formula for the Texas cotton-worm 
destroyer. 

Chas. E. Bodge. Injury to Cotton by Insects. Eural Carolinian, voL 
V, 1874, pp. 417, 418. 

Tabulates the first appearances of the worm, and states Professor Glover's- 
theory, which the table upholds. 

Chas. E,. Dodge. The Paris Green Eemedy for the Cotton Caterpillar. 
Eural Carolinian, vol. v, 1874, pp. 193-195, 

Summarizes the replies to the Department of Agriculture circular of 1873. 

TowNEND Glover. Eeport of the Commissioner of Agriculture, 1874,^ 
pp. 128, 129. 

A review of Mr. Grote's paper on the migration of the cotton moth. 

A. E. Grote. List of the Noctuidae of North America. Bulletin of 
the Buffalo Society of Natural Sciences, vol. ii, 1874-'75. 

On page 24, the cotton moth is entered under Hiibner's name of Aletia argil- 
lacta, and its synonymy is given. 

C. Y. Eiley. The Cotton Worm. Sixth Annual Eeport on the Noxious^ 
Beneficial, and other Insects of the State of Missouri, 1874, pp. 17-24. 

This article has the following heads: Paris Green; Patents on the Paris Green 
Mixture; Hibernation of tlie Insect ; Natural Enemies ; Range of the Insert ; Other 
Questions. 

A. E. Grote. The Cotton Worm, its Habitat, Means against it. Scien- 
tific American, xxxi 1874, p. 168. 
A. E. Grote, A. M. The Cotton Worm. Geological Survey of Ala- 
• bama, Eeport of Progress for 1875. Montgomery, 1876, pp. 199-204. 

An account of the natural history of the cotton worm, with arguments favor- 
ing the migration theory. 

A. S. Packard, jr., M. D. The Cotton Army Worm, Aletia argillacea 
Hiibner ; Anomis xylina Say. Eeport on the Eocky Mountain Locust 
and other insects now injuring or likely to injure Field and Garden 
Crops in the Western States and Territories. [Extracted from the 
Ninth Annual Report of the U. S. Geological and Geographical Sur- 
vey of the Territories for 1875], pp. 775-778. 

A general account of the insect, compiled from Riley, Grote, and Glover. 

J. Curtis Waldo. The Cotton Worm. A Treatise on the Enemy of 
the Great Staple, with the Practical Experience of many of the most 
intelligent Planters of the South as to the means of destroying the 
Worm. New Orleans, 1878. 

History of the cotton worm; How they look; Preventives; Jute as a prevent- 
ive; Destroyers of the cotton worm. 



284 REPORT UPON COTTON INSECTS. 

TowNEND Glover. Manuscript Notes from my Journal — Cotton, and 
the principal Insects, &c., frequenting or injuring the Plant m the 
United States. Washington, 1878. [A few copies printed from stone 
for private distribution.] 

On plate s figures the cottou worm in all stages. 

€. V. Riley. The Migrations and Hibernations of Aletia qrgillacea. 

Eead before 1879 meeting of the National Academy of Sciences. 
Review of same. Washington World, May 10, 1879, 
Review of same. Science News, June 1, 1879. 
Review of same. Scientific American, June 14, 1879. 

Reviews the different hibernation theories, and states his belief in the prob- 
able hibernation of the moth in the southern parts of the cotton belt. 

C V. Riley. Report of the Commissioner of Agriculture, 1878. Insects 
aflfecting the Cotton Plant. 

A short report on the progress made in the cotton insect investigation ; embodies 
a report by A. R. Grote. 



Plate n. 




Paii\tf d ftxjm Uature ^y Geo-Mai'3 



THE BOLL ^V^ORM, 

HeliotMs iixiiii^'era (Huetner) 



AHoenftroXiUioiaiisticBaltimore 



P^ET II. 



THE BOLL-WORM 



HELIOTHIS AKMIGERA, Hubner. 



285 



THE BOLL-WORM. 



CHAPTER I. 



IMPORTANCE OP THE SUBJECT. 



Scarcely iDferior to the cotton-worm in the extent of its injuries to the 
cotton crop is the so-called "boll- worm" {Heliothis annigera, Hiibn.). 
Every year, and, it is almost safe to say, in every plantation in the 
whole cotton-belt this pest makes its appearance, and, although its rav- 
ages during some years are insignificant beside those of the cotton-worm, 
yet the periodical appearances of the latter, the confining of its hiber- 
nating area to the more southern i)ortions of the cotton-belt, and its 
numerous parasites, all combine to render its superiority to the boll- 
worm as a cotton enemy very slight. There are, moreover, difficulties 
in the way of destroying the boll- worm — difficulties arising from its 
peculiar methods of work, and from the great number of its food plants — 
which do not exist in the case of the cotton-caterpillar, and which help 
to render the former as formidable as the latter. Indeed, in a large 
part of the cotton-belt there can be no doubt but that the boll-worm is 
the one by far the more to be feared. This is especially true in those 
more northern portions, which the cotton-worm reaches only late in the 
season ; too late, generally, to do more than clear away the too abundant 
foUage, and allow the sun to ripen the bolls more quickly. Even in 
many parts of the more southern regions we find planters expressing 
the opinion that the boll- worm is the more to be dreaded of the two. 

In Dallas County, Alabama, many xJlanters. seemed to believe that 
the boll-worm does more injury than the army worm, and they there 
think that there is no way of protecting the cotton from its ravages, 
working, as it does, within the bolls where poisons will not reach it. 
Mr. Schwarz, writing from Hearne, Eobertson County, Texas, says: 
"The fields here are more injured by Heliothis than by Aletia.'''' 

An idea of the estimation in which this pest is held throughout the 
cotton-belt may be gained from a perusal of the following extracts from 
our correspondence : 

There is oue other insect that has destroyed more cotton in this locality within the 
last four years than all other insects combined. It is known here as the boll-worm. The 
moth is larger and darker than the cotton-moth and deposits its eggs by piercing the 
form or sqnare at the base of ihe bud. The egg hatches in a few days, and the worm 
devours the young boll before it fairly blooms. Then it crawls upon the limb to an- 
other boll, bores iu and eats out the contents, then to another, and so on until all (or 
nearly so) that are upon the stalk are destroyed. The habit of the moth is nearly that 
of the cotton-moth, but the worm does not resemble the cotton-worm in any resnect. 



288 REPORT UPON COTTON INSECTS. 

Ita numbers are iucreasiug so rapidly aod its destruction is so great that it is becom- 
ing a terror to the cotton planters in this locality. If you know anything of this worm, 
and can find out some means of destroying it, you will have the gratitude of the cot- 
ton planters in this county, and probably throughout the cotton-belt. — [J. W. Jackson, 
Titus County, Texas. 

The boll-worm (Heliothis) has done more damage this year than the Xoctua xylina. 
The crop in this county is cut off at least one-third. A field of GO acres planted by my 
brother-in-law, that, with no casualty, would have made 45 bales, will barely make 
15, while some fields are entirely untouched. * * * In the field mentioned above 
we found many stalks from 6 to 7 feet in height without a single boll. — [Walter 
Barnes, Cherokee County, Texas. 

The boll- worm {Heliothis) has done more injury to the cotton plant here than any 
other insect this year. Some years they do a great deal of damage. It is said by some 
farmers that 50 per cent, of the crop is lost on account of the boll-worm. — [J. M. 
Glasco, Gilmer, Upshur County, Texas. 

The boll-worm is sometimes more injurious than the army worm. Though not so 
numerous nor so regular in its visitations, it is far more formidable in its ravages than 
the leaf-worm, since there is no way of saturating the cotton bolls with poison to 
destroy them. — [VV. J. Jones, Virginia Point, Galveston County, Texas. 

The Boll-Worm. — From every quarter we hear complaints of the ravages of these 
pests, which in a given series of years, no doubt do more injury to the cotton than even the 
dreaded caterpillar. They are unusually destructive at this time, both in the hills and 
bottomlands. * » * Wehear very little complaint of the cotton-worm in this neigh- 
borhood. — [Louisiana Sugar Bowl, September 13, 1879, from the Shreveport Times of 
July 22. 

The boll-worm visited the crops here early in July (during which month we had 
repeated rains), and has continued its ravages up to the present period. The opinion 
of the the planters, as well as my own, is that it has done more damage this year than 
the Anomis will do, though many fields are now stripped of their leaves by the latter. 
I regard the croi) as damaged at least one-third. — [E. II. Anderson, M. D., Kirkwoodf 
Miss. 

The boll-worm, I doubt not, has destroyed more cotton in Alabama th.an the Aletia ar- 
jillacea. — [D. Lee, Mount Willing, Lowndes County, Ala. 

I would mention the boll-worm, Avhich bores into the boll and destroys each lobe 
pierced, and many think that the boll-worm is inore destructive on ati average than the 
caterpillar, for the reason that it attacks the cotton, more or less, every year. I have 
counted frequently as many on some stalks as 20 fine bolls destroyed by boll-worms. 
In 1847 there was no caterpillar; but the boll-worm, from written memoranda furnished 
me by Hon. A. C. Mitchell, of Glenville, Ala., nearly destroyed the crop, being as de- . 
structive as the caterpillar the x^resent year. — [H. Hawkins, Hawkinsville, Ala. 

A good many planters in this locality dread it as much as they do the caterpillar. — [Knox, 
Menge and Evans, Faunsdale, Ala. 

It has been my opinion that the damage caused by the boll-worm is as heavy as any 
caused by the caterpillars. — [H. C. Brown, Camden, Ala. 

I believe the boll-worm has done a great deal more damage in the aggregate than the 
cotton-worm. — [C. C. Howard, Autagaville. 

The boll-worm does us, upon the whole, more damage than the cot ton- worm. — [A. J. 
Cheves, Montezuma, Ga. 

A brief review of the Entomological Eecord, prepared by Mr. Town- 
end Glover daring the eleven years, 1866-1870, for the Monthly Reports 
of this department, shows j^lainly that the damage done by the boll- 
worm during that space of time was not greatly inferior to that done by 
the cotton-worm. In that case, however, tiiere is difficulty in estima- 
ting them comparatively, from the fact that both were indiscriminately 



AMOUNT OF DAMAGE. 289 

reported by correspondents as " worms." The two taken together, 
thongh, form a pair capable of doing damage snch as few crops beside 
cotton are afflicted with. 

Corn is the only other crop which the boll- worm afflicts at all com- 
parably to cotton, and, although in this article we shall consider this 
insect only in its relation to the cotton crop, in speaking of its impor- 
tance it may be well to state the harm occasionally done to corn. One 
of the most marked instances was in 1860, in Kansas. It was a year of 
great drought, and the corn crop was almost entirely destroyed by the 
corn-worm. According to the Prairie Farmer of January 31, 1801, one 
county which in 1859 raised 436,000 bushels of corn, only produced 
5,000 bushels in 1860, and this was x>oor and full of worms, and this 
seems to have been a fair sample for the State. This very season, a 
writer from Cherokee County, Kansas, addressed Coleman's Rural 
World, complaining bitterly of the destruction of the corn- worm. He 
states that there was not an ear in his cornfield which the worms had 
not eaten. 

Professor Eiley says: 

It attacks corn in the ear, at first feeding on the silk, but afterwards devouring the 
kernels at the terminal end; being securely sheltered the while within the husk. I 
have seen ivhole fields of corn nearly ruined in this way in the State of Kentucky; but 
nowhere have I known it to be so destructive as in Southern Illinois. 

Professor French says : 

As a general thing I think it has not been so destructive during the past season as 
it is sometimes, but in one field of late com I found nearly every ear eaten by them, 
there being from one to half a dozen worms to each ear. In many of them, when my 
observations were made, while the corn was yet soft, the process of molding and 
decay had progressed to such an extent that it was difiicult to conceive that such corn 
could ever become anything fit for man or beast to eat. 

In the Department of Agriculture Report for 1855 we find the follow- 
ing statement : 

In an interesting communication from Col. Benjamin F. Whitner, of Tallahassee, 
Fla., he states that the boll-worm was scarcely known in his neighborhood before the 
year 1841 ; and yet, in the short period of fourteen years, it had increased to such a 
degree as to have become one of the greatest enemies to the cotton on several planta- 
tions in that vicinity. 

In 1807, a correspondent from Jefferson Parish, Louisiana, stated that 
" the boll- worm destroys about one-half the crop with us. This year 
none of my neighbors raise cotton." 

These instances will be sufQcient to show the estimation in which the 
boll-worm is generally held throughout the South. The estimates of 
damage caused by this insect are, however, almost always exaggerated. 
Very many young " squares " perish from some cause ; it may bo from 
non-fertilization, from some peculiarity of the weather, or from injury 
caused b\^ some other insect than Heliothis ; Dut many planters attrib- 
ute the destruction of all their young bolls to the boll -worm, and adduce 
as evidence of this the fact that a large i)roportion of the bolls exhibit 
19 CI 



290 EEPORT UPON COTTON INSECTS. 

ou one side what appears to be a sliglit puncture. As I never saw any 
insect inflicting this injury, I am unable to state whether this impres- 
sion of the planters be correct or not. Several reasons have led me to 
doubt it. First, it seems improbable that the young boll- worms should 
eat out the contents of so small a proportion of the bolls which they 
punctiu-e. I have often observed from twenty to fifty of these blasted 
"squares" lying on the ground under a single cotton-plant, while the 
most patient search revealed only one or two boll- worms upon the plant. 
Second, the punctures referred to above differ in appearance from those 
which I have seen the young boll- worms make. The newly -hatched 
boll-worm, according to my observation, when it punctures a young boll, 
gnaws a hole through the pod suthciently large to insert its head. The 
punctures in the blasted square api)ears much smaller, as if made by 
some haustellate insect. 
The observations of Mr. Trelease upon this point were as follows : 

When a flower, bud, or young 1)011 of cotton is punctured by the boll-vrorm, the 
involucre or " square" which surrounds its base spreads open or "flares," and sooner 
or later the injured fruit fixlls to the ground. Even before the cotton commenced to 
bloom, many of these blasted squares were to be seen upon the grouud, and in every 
case where the involucre had flared open I found the form punctured, though most of 
these punctures early in the season were very small and had no excrement in the 
square beneath them ; thus diflering from punctures formed by the boll-worm. There 
is no doubt that these very small perforations are made by hepiipterous insects; and 
I strongly suspect two species, which are very common on the cotton-plant, and which 
have the habit of running around the stalk as you try to obtain a view of them, much 
as squirrels do under similar circumstances, so that they always keep the stem inter- 
posed between themselves and an observer. This shyness prevented me from verify- 
ing my suspicions, though I watched the insects a great many times. On the other 
hand, many blasted squares result from climatic injuries, and these may be distin- 
guished from those caused by insects, since the square retains its normal position and 
form.* 

Mr. Glover states that he has observed three species of Hemii)terous 
insects pierce cotton -bolls, thus causing them to fall. The cotton Ly- 
gaeus {Lygaeus si).) although usually carnivorous, he has seen to pierce the 
terminal shoots and buds of cotton. He describes it as follows : 

The perfect insect is rather more than one-twentieth of an inch in length, with red- 
dish-brown eyes, yellowish antennae, and a head and thorax black; the triangular 
space between the wings is black; the wings are brownish-yellow, barred in the cen- 
ter with two triangular black marks ; the ends of wings diamond-shaped, of a light 
color ; the upper part of the thigh is black ; and the rest of the leg yellowish. 

Of Calcorus Mmaculatiis, H. Schf., and C. ra^idus Say, which he also 

found piercing cotton-bolls, he says : 

I observed three insects (C. bimaculatus) when confined under glass, sucking the sap 
from the buds and young bolls, their only food. The young eventually completed 
their transformations into perfect insects. They were observed, moreover, to eject 
large droxis of green sap from their abdomens, which could only have been procured 
from the buds themselves. * * * The perfect insect is seven-twentieths of an inch 
in length ; the antennae are brown and green, the eyes brown ; the thorax somewhat 
triangular; the anterior part green, and shaded with reddish-brown posteriorly ; the 

* Appendix I, report of William Trelease. 



BOLLS PIERCED BY CALCORIS RAPIDUB. 291 

legs brown and green; the wing-cases with a cross, shaped like the letter X, forming 
four triangles, those nearest the thorax being reddish-brown ; the side triangles are 
green. 

There is likewise another species (C rapidus) which was found perforating the young 
flower buds and bolls of cotton similar to the above. The head and anterior portion of 
the thorax are reddish-brown, the remainder of the thorax yellow with a double mark 
in the middle ; the wing-cases are brownish-black, with two longitudinal yellow lines 
from the upper outside corner of the wing-cases to the posterior edge, forming a divid- 
ing mark, somewhat shaped like the letter X. 

Mr. Trelease, on several occasions, noticed a bug piercing the bolls, 
■whicb, from his description, is probably Calcoris rcqndus. 

It will be but just to add that many planters appreciate the difference 
between the bolls actually destroyed by Heliothis and those destroyed 
by other means, as shown by the answers of several of our correspon- 
dents. Still, on the whole, it seems probable that the majority confound 
the various causes and put these results all down to the boll-worms' 
account. But even allowing for this, its ravages, it can easily be seen, 
are of a very grave character. 



OHAPTEE II. 

NATUEAL HISTORY. 
NOMENCLATUKE. 

Of popular names the boll-worm has one for almost every plant upon 
which it feeds and for every country which it inhabits ; and as it is, 
as will soon be shown, almost cosmopolitan and a very general feeder, 
these names are many. Throughout cotton-growing States it is very gen- 
erally kuowu as the holl-ivorm when it occurs upon cotton ; when it occurs 
upon corn it is called the corn-worm, and as such it is known in those 
Western Statcir in which it infests the corn crop. In many Southern 
States it is known in the early part of the season as the corn-bud worm. 
Where found upon tomatoes it is called the tomato icorm. These four 
names are the ones by which it is best known in this country. As we 
shall consider it only in its relation to cotton, we shall speak of it as the 
boll- worm, except where it is necessary to make use of one of the other 
titles. 

As to the scientific classification of the boll- worm moth, we may safely 
say that it is a near relation to the cotton- worm moth. It belongs to 
the same order, Lepidoptera; the same section, Heterocera; the same 
family, Noctuidoe; and the same tribe, Noctuse.* Its genus is Heliothis 
of Huebner, and its specific name, armigera, given it by the same author. 

The scientific nomenclature of this insect has suffered from the intro- 
duction of but a single synonym so far as we are aware. It was origi- 
nally described by Huebner as Heliothis armigera. In 1863, in a paper 
entitled "Additions to the Catalogue of U. S. Lepidoptera," Mr. Grote 
described a male specimen, taken on Long Island, New York, as Helio- 
this umhrosus n. sp., attaching to the description the "observation" — 

Approaches to tlie European H. armigera, Avhicli species lias, however, a discal mark 
on the posterior wings, and is otherwise specifically distinct. It ajipears also from the 
description of H. exprimans Walker, C. B. M. Noct., p. G87, to have some resemblance 
with that sjiecies, but the expressions "(alae anticae) orbicular! et reniformi magnis 
ferrugineo marginatis," and " (alae posticae) litura discali," do not apply to the species 
I have just described. t 

* For brief characterizations of these subdivisions see Part I, Chaj)ter I. 

tThe descrij)tion is as follows : 

"Anterior wings, yellowish-gray, crossed by several indistinct irregular darker shaded 
lines. Discal spot blackish, beyond which is a row of minute black dots, one on each 
nervule, running parallel with the outer margin of the wing and connected with each 
other by a faint waved line, the curvatures turned inward toward the base of the wing ; 
fringes dark. Posterior wings yellowish-white, without markings, except a broad 
blackish band running parallel with the outer margin, and which is partly interrupted 
near the center by a space of a similar color to the rest of the wing : fringes white. 
292 



FOOD PLANTS. 293 

Before 1873, however, Mr. Grote had discovered that RcUothis armi- 
gera was a very variable species, aud that what he had described as H. 
umhrosus iu 18G3 was simply one of its varieties. He therefore noted 
the fact in the bulletin of the Buffalo Society of ISTatural Sciences, Yol. I, 
p. 120. He there says : 

While a comparison of American specimens (« m&rosws) ■with European individuals 
{armigera) affords mo no apparently valid distinguishing characters, yet I remark that 
the larvae have not yet been compared. I am not yet prepared to believe that the 
species has been introduced from Eiu'ope, feeding, as it does here, on some j)eculiarly 
American genera of plants. 

Some time previous to this, Mr. Glover had acknowledged the identity 
of the European and American insects in the Department of Agricul- 
ture Eeports, as also had Walsh and Riley in the American Entomolo- 
gist, and Eiley in the Missouri Entomological Eeports. 

GEOGEAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION. 

We shall not enter into the discussion as to the original habitat of 
the boll-worm, as such would necessarily prove fruitless on account of 
the insufficiency of the data. Mr. Grote goes on to say : 

Yet, according to Guende, its habitat is very extended, since it has been taken in 
Australia, where, however, it has been introduced since the colonization, and from 
America. It occurs apparently rarely in Europe, whereas it is here common. Has it 
reached Europe by a westward route from California ? We shall probably soon write 
after its habitat — the world! 

It is a suggestive fact, reflecting upon Mr. Grote's conclusion, that the 
earliest mention of the boll-worm in this country which we have found 
is 1811, whereas Huebner described the European form prior to 1825. 

As above stated, the geographical range of the species is very great. 
Mr. Bond, at the March 1, 18G9, meeting of the London Entomological 
Society, exhibited specimens from the Isle of Wightj Java, and Austra- 
lia, and these localities, taken in connection with other parts of Europe 
and the United States, seem to justify Mr. Grote's prediction. 

FOOD PLANTS. 

Eor many years it was not known that the destructive corn-worm and 
the cotton boll-worm were the same insect. It was suspected by many 
before actually demonstrated, but is even now unknown to the majority 
of agriculturists. The first record of the identity of the two insects 
which we have been able to find is in the Department of Agriculture 

Under surface of the wings pale, showing the black discal spot on the anterior wings 
plainly, outside of which is a blackish transverse band and a small blackish streak 
near the upper margin. Under surface of post wings immaculate, except a faint 
blackish shade near the outer margin. Head, thorax, and tegulae yellowish-gray, 
darker than the anterior wings. Body grayish, clothed at the sides with whitish hairs 
and darkening towards the tip. Exj). 1^ inches." — [Proc. Ent. Soc. Phila., vol. 1 
(1801-18(53), p. 219. 



294 REPORT UPON COTTON INSECTS. 

Eeport for 1854, in an article headed "Insects infesting the cotton- 
I^lant," by Townend Glover. Mr. Glover says : 

Tliero is a striking similarity between tlio boll-worm and tlie corn-worm, in appear- 
ance, food, and habits, both in the caterpillar and jierfcct state, which leads to the 
supj)ositiou that the boll- worm may be the young of the corn-worm moth, and the 
eggs deposited on the yonng bolls as the nearest substitute for green corn, and placed 
on them only when the com has become too old and hard for their food. * * * Col. 
B. A. Sorsby, of Columbus, Miss., has bred both insects, and declares them to bo the 
same ; and moreover when, according to his advice, the corn was carefully wormed, 
on two or three i)lantations, the boll-worms did not make their ai^pearauce that season 
on the cotton, notwithstanding on neighboring jilantations they committed great 
ravages. 

To Col. B. A. Sorsby, then, must be given the credit for first making 
this important discovery. 

The next mention of the fact with which we have metis in the Amer- 
ican Cotton Planter for August, 1855, in an article on the cotton-worm, 
by J. n. Zimmerman, M. D. (See bibliographical list to Part I.) Dr. 
Zimmerman says (p. 229) : 

Judging from analogy, I supposed it to be more than probable that the worm that 
jjreys on the ends of the ears of our green corn, and the buds or tassels before 
they come out, was the same kind or siiecies so destructive to the cotton, and that it 
would be equally as destructive to the corn crops were it not for the fact that the 
corn matures with the first crop or generation of the worm, and before it becomes nu- 
merous by a succession of generations. This supposition proved to bo correct on a 
further investigation. I have obtained the worm from the ears of the green com, 
and have fed it on the cotton-bolls, and it would soon take on the same physical com- 
I)lexion and features, in every particular, of those which were obtained from the 
cotton. 

The statement of Colonel Sorsby was repeated in the Department 
of Agriculture Eeport for 1855. In 1858, in a communication to the 
American Cotton Planter for November of that year, Mr. E. Sanderson 
says: 

Now, Mr. Editor, my opinion is that I can trace the worms from the corn-fields to 
the cotton-fields, though 1 may be mistaken in this; but the first place that I can find the 
worm, the same sx^ecies, is in the corn-fields, in the roasting-ears. I have looked and 
examined in every hole and comer to find where they make their first appearance, 
and I can find them nowhere but in the corn-fields. There they may be found in the 
roasting-ear, &c. 

The first time that Mr. Glover recorded his belief in the identity of 
the two insects was in the Department of Agriculture Eeport for 1864, 
p. 554, in the -following words : 

The corn-worm is very injurious in several parts of the country, especially in the 
Middle and Southern States. * * * We have seen a similar insect, if not the 
same, in the Southern States, where it is known as the cotton-boll worm, and is ex- 
ceedingly destructive to cotton. Moreover, we have fed the corn-worm, found oa 
corn, on cotton-bolls, and vice versa, and the moths produced were identical. 

Mr. Glover repeats in the Monthly Eeport for July, 1866 : 

For the sake of proving this fact, I have frequently taken the worms from unripe 
ears of corn and fed them entirely on cotton-bolls, as also the worms from cotton and 



HELIOTHIS VS. TOMATOES. 295' 

fed them on corn, and in no case did the change of diet appear to affect the health of 
the caterpillars in the least, as they went through all their transformations in exactly 
the same manner, and when the perfect moths made their appearance they could not 
ho distinguished from each other, although I may here observe that even from the 
same brood of caterpillars the xjerfect moths vary considerably in size, color, and 
markings. 

Professor Eiley, in his Third Missouri Entomological Eeport (1871), 
again states the case as follows : 

The "boll-worm" has become a by-word in all the Southern cotton-growing Slates, 
and the " cotton- worm" is a like familiar term in those States, as well as in many 
other parts of the Union ; but few j)ersons suspect that these two worms, the ouo 
feeding on the corn, tha other on the cotton-boll, are identically the same insect, pro- 
ducing exactly the same species of moth. But such is the fact, as I myself first ex- 
perimentally proved in 1864. 

The consideration of the boll- worm in corn is inseparably connected 
with the consideration of its work in cotton, so little more need be said 
here of its methods of work. In those corn States which do not grow 
cotton, it is greatly dreaded. Whole crops are ruined in Kansas, Ken- 
tucky, South Illinois, and Missouri, and scarcely a year passes without 
much damage being done. 

According to Riley, there are two broods of the worms a year in those 
States, and very early and very late corn fare the worst, the intermedi- 
ate varieties usually escaping severe injury. In seasons of iirotracted 
length, a third brood is sometimes produced, which, for want of other 
food, lives upon the hard kernels of well-ripened ears. Mrs. Treat has 
shown that an early brood in New Jersey bores into the stalks of corn, 
and also eats through the leaves surrounding the staminate flowers 
before the ears had begun to make their appearance. This would argue 
perhaps three broods a year north, making the exceptional late brood of 
which Professor Eiley speaks a fourth. The so-called "bud-worms" of 
the Southern corn crop are nothing but this same early brood of 
SeliotMs, having almost precisely similar habits to those observed in 
New Jersey by Mrs. Treat. 

In the role of a tomato-worm, Heliothis has done a great deal of dam- 
age. In Maryland, in 1869, according to Mr. Glover, these worms did 
great injury to the tomato-crop, eating alike the ripe and the unripe 
fruit, gnawing great holes in them and rendering them unfit for market 
use. One worm would sometimes entirely ruin a number of tomatoes on 
one plant alone. Concerning this taste of the boll- worm, Mr. Riley says : 

This glutton is not even satisfied with ravaging these two great staples of the 
country, cotton and corn, but, as I discovered in 1867, it voraciously attacks the 
tomato in South Illinois, eating into the green fruit, and thereby causing such fruit 
to rot. In this manner it often causes serious loss to the tomato-grower, and it may 
justly be considered the worst enemy to the tomato in that section of the counrry. 

In the American Entomologist, ii, 172, we find the following inter- 
esting statement : 

We learn from a recent number of Scientific Opinion that, at a late meeting of the 
London Entomological Society, Mr. Jenner Weir exhibited specimens of our cotton 
boll- worm moth (Heliothis armigera, Hiibn.) which were bred from larvae which fed on 



296 EEPORT UPON COTTON INSECTS. 

tlic fruit of tlio tomato. As we liave already sliown (American Entomologist, i, pp. 
212,213), this same species attacks our corn, and Joes great damage to our tomatoes 
by eating into the fruit ; and the fact of its being bred from the tomato in England, 
-where this fruit is with difficulty grown, is interesting and suggestive. 

But the tomato-worin is not confined to the fruit, as is shown by the 
fact that several specimens were recently sent to the department, with 
the remark that they were found boring into the terminal shoots of 
tomato plants at Macon, Ga., early in September. 

Another common garden vegetable that is also injured by the boll- 
worm is the garden pea. We extract the following from the American 
Entomologist, ii, pp. 42, 43 : 

From the following passage in an address on insects, delivered at Vineland, N. J., 
by that excellent observer, Mrs. Mary Treat, of that place, and published in the Vine 
and Weekly of August 21, 1869, it appears that this very same larva also feeds uj)on 
the undeveloped tassels of com and upon green pease. 

"This year, green pease have been eaten into by a hateful looking worm, and a simi- 
lar one ate into the stamlnate llowers of the corn before it tasseled out, commencing 
their depredations while the tassels were still enfolded in the leaves. I have exam- 
ined considerable corn, and in some gardens this worm has done much damage. While 
feeding, it is of a green color; but when it comes to full size it turns brown, and goes 
into the ground to assume the chrysalis form. I already have the moths of the cater- 
pillar that lived upon the pease, and am waiting for those that lived upon the corn to 
make their appearance, so that I may decide whether they are distinct species. It is 
a query with me what the second brood of caterpillars will live upon as green pease 
and untasseled corn will be out of their reach. " 

There can be no doubt about the identity of the moth, the larvae of which fed upon 
pease, because Mrs. Treat obligingly forwarded to us in the middle of August specimens 
actually bred by her from green pease, which differ in no respect from the common type 
of the corn-worm moth. Unfortunately, she has mixed together promiscuously the 
moths bred by her from green pease and those which she subsequently bred from corn 
tassels ; but at our express desire she has examined the mixed lot, and informs us that 
she can detect no difierence of any consequence among them. 

Testimony to the same eifect has been given by Mr. Glover (Depart- 
ment of Agriculture Eeport 1870, p. 84) and by Mr. Eiley (Third Mis- 
souri Entomological Eeport, p. 105). Mr. Trelease observed them eating 
garden pease in Alabama. A boll-worm would bore a, hole into the pod 
and devour its whole contents before leaving it for another. 

Of allied plants, the boll-worm has been observed to eat the chick-pea 
{Cicev arietinum) in Europe, the common cow-i)ea of the South, and the 
common string-bean (Phascolus vulgaris), and Erytlirina herhacea, a le- 
guminous plant common iu the South. M. J. Eallou {Insectologie Agri- 
cole, 1869, 1). 205) records HeliotMs as feeding upon the chick-pea. He 
found the young worms to feed upon the leaves and the large ones to 
bore into the pod. With the cow-pea, upon which Mr. Trelease found 
it feeding very abundantly, and in which the pod is more fleshy and the 
pease separated by fleshy partitions, it often pursues a different course 
from that which it takes with the common garden pea ; it often bores into 
one chamber of the pod, eats the seed in it, and then, instead of cutting 
through the partition to reach the next, bores another hole from the out- 
side. The same observation precisely was made concerning their habits 



THE EGG OF THE BOLL-WOEM MOTH. 297 

wlien feeding upon Erytlirina. As to the string-beans, Professor Eiley 
records that it was found eating them around Kirkwood, Mo., by Miss 
Mary Murtfeldt. 

This department has also received specimens of the boll- worm from D. 
Landreth & Sons, of Philadelphia, as quite seriously infesting fields of 
Lima beans. The communication accompanying may i^rove of interest : 

Philadelphia, Pa., October 31, 1879. 
Sir : By mail we send yoii some pods of Lima beans wliich have been entered, and 
tbe beans partially destroyed, by a worm new to us. 

We bad twenty acres growing on our New Jersey farm near Burlington, and have 
suffered a loss of '.) to 5 per cent. 

This is the first season the worm has appeared, and we send it, trusting that your 
entomologist may be able to tell us something of its habits. 
Eespectfully, 

D. LANDEETH & SONS. 
Hon. W. G. Le Due, 

Commissioner of Agrictillure. 

The beans sent were each pierced by one hole of an eighth of an inch 
or more in diameter, and the contents in every case had been destroyed. 

Of other useful plants which the boll- worm occasionally feeds upon 
we would mention x)umpkins [Cucurhitapepo), as recorded by Mr. Glover 
in the Department of Agriculture Eeport for 1870, p. 84, and red pep- 
pers {Capsicum annuimi), as recorded by G. H. French in the Seventh Ee- 
port of the State Entomologist, of Illinois, p. 102. Mr. Glover also states 
that " a young boll-worm was found in the corolla of the flower of a 
squash, devouring the pistil and stamens." 

Mr. French also records the fact of finding what he considered to be 
the boll- worm in the pods of Kihiscus grandijlorus, the large flowered 
rose mallow. 

Mrs. Treat discovered, in the course of her observations upon ReliotJiis, 
that many individuals of the first brood ate into the stems of the garden 
flower known as Gladiolus, and not only into the stems but into the 
flower-buds also. 

As regards its European food-plants, Professor Eiley quotes from M. 
Ch. Goureau's Insectes N'uisibles, Second Supplement, 18G5, p. 132, to the 
eflect that it not only infests the ears of Indian corn, but devours also 
the heads of hemp and the leaves of tobacco and of lucerne {^ledicago 
saliva). 

And now let us turn to the consideration of the boll-worm on cotton. 

THE EGa. 

The egg of the boll- worm moth differs in form from that of the cotton- 
worm moth, as shown in the accompanying figure, by its much greater 
diameter through from top to bottom, looking, as one author aptly ex- 
jjresses it, " as though molded in a tea-cup, while the cotton- worm egg 
was molded in the saucer." The two diameters of the Qgg are nearly 
equal and are about the same as the greatest diameter of the egg of 




298 REPORT UPON COTTON INSECTS. 

AJetia. In color also it differs from tlie egg of Aletia, the latter being 
of a delicate green, scarcely distinguishable from the leaf, while the 

former is nearly white and easily detected upon the 
4. plant. A noticeable feature of many of these eggs 

is an irregular reddish-brown band near their sum- 
FiG. 76.— Egg of boll- mits, which gradually disappears with the devel- 
worm moth. opment of the embryo. The sculpturing of the egg 

is almost identical with that of the cotton-worm moth. The number of 
eggs laid by the female Heliotliis must approximate pretty closely to that 
laid by the female Aletia. According to Mr. Glover, a single female 
boll- worm moth dissected by Dr. John Gamble, contained upwards of 
500 eggs. From their greater thickness, this number of eggs would nec- 
essarily take up more room than the same number of Aletia eggs, and 
hence we find that the female Heliotliis is more robust than the Aletia. 

From all accounts, the favorite ovi-positiug time is at or shortly after 
twilight, when the moths are flying in great numbers. Concerning the 
place of deposit of the eggs, however, published accounts have differed. 
Mr. Glover says : 

The egg is generally deposited singly on the outside of the involucel or outer calyx 
of the flower or young boll, where it adheres by means of a gummy substance which 
surrounds the egg when iirst laid, and which hardens by exposure to the atmosphere. 
It has been repeatedly stated by planters that the egg was deposited on the stem, and 
that the young stem forms the Iirst food of the newly-hatched caterpillar; but after a 
careful examination of several hundred stems I found only one egg placed in this situ- 
ation, and that from the fact of its being laid on its side instead of the base, had evi- 
dently been misplaced. 

Professor Riley, in his Third Missouri Entomological Eeport follows 
Mr. Glover quite exactly, saying: " It is usually deposited singly on the 
outside of the involucre or outer calyx or young boll." 

Observations made during the past two years would seem to disprove 
this statement of Mr. Glover's pretty effectually. I found it to be the 
exception that the eggs are laid upon the involucre. Although I have 
found them upon all parts of the plant, the majority of them seem to be 
deposited upon the lower surface of the leaves, as is the case with the 
cotton-worm eggs. I made a careful search of many plants while in the 
cotton-fields of Alabama, and the following note will serve to indicate 
the usual distribution of the eggs. " On one plant I found eleven eggs 
which were distributed in the following manner : one on the involucre, 
two on the stalks and eight on the leaves." Mr. Trelease states in his 
report that he found them upon the petioles and both surfaces of the 
leaves, and upon the outer surface of the involucre, and in a letter re- 
marks : 

I have found them upon the upper and lower surfaces of the leaves, and rarely upon 
the involucre. So far I have seen them nowhere else, and find that quite a percentage 
is laid upon the upper surface of the leaf. 

The duration of the egg state varies with the season of the year, much 
as it does with the egg of the cotton-moth. We have no data as to the 



THE YOUNG BOLL-WORM. 299 

actual length of time between the laying of the egg and the time of 
hatching, but it probably approximates to Aletia in this respect, although 
the time may be somewhat longer. 

THE LARVA. 

As just stated, we have disproved the old idea that by far the majority 
of the eggs are laid upon calyx and involucre, and it consequently fol- 
lows that the received opinions as to the newly hatched worm boring 
immediately into the boll or flower-bud must also be thrown aside. The 
worm after gnawing through its egg-shell makes its first meal upon the 
part of the plant upon which the egg was laid, be it leaf, stem, or invo- 
lucre. Should it be laid upon the leaf, as is usually the case, it may be 
three days before the worm reaches the boll. Should they be laid upon 
the involucre, the young worm bores into the boll at an earlier date. 
Mr. Glover publishes what seems to be a phenomenal instance as the 
normal one. He says : 

A boll- worm which was bred from an egg found upon the involucre or "ruffle" of a 
flower-bud grew to rather more than a twentieth of an inch in length by the third day, 
when it shed its skin, having eaten in the mean time nothing but the parenchyma or 
tender fleshy substance from the outside of the calyx. On the fifth day it pierced 
through the outer calyx and commenced feeding inside. On the sixth day it again 
shed its skin, and had increased to about the tenth of an inch in length. On the tenth 
day it again shed its skin, ate the interior of the young flower-bud, and had grown 
much larger. On the fourteenth day for the fourth time it shed its skin, attacked and 
ate into a young boll, and had increased to thirteen-twentieths of an inch in length. 
From this time it ate nothing but the inside of the boll, and on the twentieth day the 
skin was again shed and it had grown to the length of an inch and one-tenth, but, 
unfortunately, died before completing its final change. 

The extreme slowness of growth during the first six days is evidently 
a mistake on the part of Mr. Glover in measurement, and, as such, should 
here be corrected. He makes the larva at the end of six days and after 
two molts one-tenth of an inch in length, whereas, according to our 
measurement, it is usually nearly, if not quite, that length upon emerg- 
ing from the egg, and at the end of six days has attained a very respect- 
able size. The reason for quoting this paragraph was not only to call 
attention to the mistake, but also to show the length of time which a 
worm may, under certain circumstances, feed upon the outside of a boll 
before piercing to the inside. As a rule, we may safely say that where 
the egg is laid upon the involucre the worm pierces through within 
twenty-four hours after hatching. 

The newly-hatched boll- worm walks like a geometrid larva or looper, 
" a measuring- worm," as it is often called. This is easily explained by 
the fact that, while in the full-grown worm the abdominal legs or pro- 
legs are all nearly equal in length, in the newly-hatched worm the second 
pair is slightly shorter than the third, and the first ijair is shorter and 
slenderer than the second, a state of things approaching that in the full- 
grown cotton- worm, though the difference in size in the former case is 



300 EEPORT UPON COTTON INSECTS. 

not nearly so marked as in the latter. This method of walking, the worm 
loses with its first or second molt. There is nothing remarkably char- 
acteristic abont these young larvae. They seem to be somewhat thicker 
in proportion to their lengths than do the young cotton- worms, and they 
have not so delicate and transparent kn appearance. Their heads are 
black, and their bodies seem already to have begun to vary in color. 
The body above is furnished with sparse, stiff hairs, each arising from 
a tubercle. I have often watched the newly-hatched boll-worms while 
in the cotton-fields. When hatched from an egg which had been depos- 
ited upon a leaf, they invariably made their first meal on the substance 
of the leaf and then wandered about for a longer or shorter space of time, 
evidently seeking a boll or flower-bud. It was always interesting to 
watch this seemingly aimless search, the young worm crawling first down 
the leaf stem and then back, then dropping a few inches by a silken 
thread, and then painfully working its way back again until at last it 
found its boll or bud, or fell to the ground, where it was destroyed by 
ants. 

Mr. Trelease was instructed to report upon the point of the eating of 
the leaves by the young larvae, and the following is the report of his ob- 
servations : 

Very soon after its exclusion, tlie yonng larva begins to feed upon the substance of 
tlie leaf or bract, or other organ on which it finds itself; and when this chances to be 
a leaf or bract, it leaves the epidermis on the other side for some time. During the 
first half day or day of its existence it feeds in this way, forming small, irregular, 
transparent spots in the blade of the leaf or in the bract, after which it pierces a 
hole — usually more rounded than that first formed by Aletia — through the organ. 
The age at which this is done appears, from my observations, to be earlier than 
that at which the caterpillar pierces the leaf; but I find that it diifers greatly with 
different individuals, some piercing the leaf whe^i less than ten hours old, some not 
until they are about two days old. After this, if it does not find itself close to a 
flower-bud, immature fruit, or some other object suitable for its food, the larva moves 
abont in search of this food ; finding which, it shortly goes to eating. Whatever may 
be its food, this worm, according to my observations, always forms regular, round 
openings in its exterior for its own entrance or exit ; and these vary in size with the 
size of the larva, being just large enough to allow the animal's body to pass with 
ease. Another peculiarity of this larva is its wandering character, especially earlier 
in the season when feeding on the flower-buds or forms of cotton ; for these, being 
small, the contents of each is soon eaten by the worm, which necessarily moves on 
in search of more food. 

We may safely say, then, that the young larvae feed for a longer or 
shorter space of time upon the part of the plant on which they are 
born, but migrate sooner or later to flower-bud or boll. That the worm 
may occasionally attain fnll growth, having fed upon the leaves alone, is 
shown by the fact that Mr. Trelease, on May 30, found a partly grown 
boll-worm feeding upon the leaves of cotton. At this time, the forms 
were very few and very small. Comparatively early in the season, 
when feeding upon buds or small bolls, a single worm often does a great 



BOLL-WORM VS. COTTON FLOWERS. 301 

amount of damage, proceeding from bud to bud or from boll to boll. Mr. 
Glover says : ' 

The pistils and. stamens of the open flower are frequently found to be distorted and 
injured without any apparent cause. This has been done by the young boll-worm. 
When hidden in the uuopen bud, it has eaten one side only of the pistil and stamens, 
so that when the flower is open the parts injured are distorted and maimed, and very 
frequently the young flower falls without forming any boll whatever. Li many cases, 
however, the young avo rm bores through the bottom of the flower into the immature 
boll before the old flower falls, thus leaving the boll and involucre, or envelope, still 
adhering to the foot-stalk, and the worm safely lodged in the growing boll. The 
number of buds destroyed by this worm is very great, as they fall ofl" when quite small, 
and are scarcely observed as they lie brown and withering on the ground beneath the 
plant. The instinct of the boll-worm, however, teaches it to forsake a bud or boll 
about to fall, and either to seek another healthy boll or to fasten itself to a leaf, on 
■which it remains until it has shed its skin, when it attacks another boll in a similar 
manner, until at length it acquires size and strength suflicieut to enable it to bore 
into a nearly matured boll, the interior of which is entirely destroyed by its attacks, 
as, should it not be completely devoured, rain penetrates through the hole made by the 
worm and the cotton soon becomes rotted and will not ripen. These rotted bolls serve 
also as food or shelter for numerous small insects. One thing is worthy of observation, 
and that is, whenever a young bud or boll is seen Avith the involucre or outer calyx 
(by some called the " ruffle ") spread open, and of a sickly yellow color, it may be 
safely concluded that it has been attacked by the boll-worm and will soon perish 
ish and fall to the ground. When the bolls are older they remain adhering to the 
plant. If many af these "forms" or buds lying on the ground are closely examined, 
the greater portion of them will be found to have been previously pierced by the boll- 
worm ; some few exceiitions may, however, have been caused by the minute punctures 
of plant bugs, by rains, or adverse atmospheric influences. The buds injured by the 
worm may be readily distinguished by a minute hole where it has entered and which, 
when cut open, will be found partially filled with small black grains, something like 
coarse gunpowder, which is nothing but the digested foodafter having j)assed through 
the body of the young worm. 

The destruction of the essential parts of the flower before the boll 
proijer is formed, which is spoken of in the quotation, is sometimes as 
great a source of loss as the destruction of the maturing bolls. The two 
following extracts from the notes of one of the observers bear upon the 
jpoint : 

August 1. — Several Heliofhis larvos found in opened white flowers, having perforated 
the petals, and being engaged in eating the anthers and stigma. The larger ones had 
eaten all but the staminal tube and the inclosed style and ovary, and even this tube 
was liierced at the base. * » * 

August A. — ZTeZioWws larv£e of a reddish tinge and 1 to 1.3 cm. in length are quite 
abundant on boll-flowers and unopened buds. The latter they iiierce, and thus cause 
the involucre to flare and the bud to fall. The former are observed to have round 
holes eaten in their petals, and in several cases the stamens were entirely eaten out. 

In one case, a nearly full-grown green larva was found in a flower through which it had 
pierced near the base (calyx and corolla) a. hole 4 mm. in diameter. Within, it had 
eaten ofl^ stamens and stigma, leaving the staminal tube and its inclosed style and ovary. 

It is quite a common sight to see these large green or pink worms in 
the flower, as also the younger individuals, the latter, however, usually 
having penetrated the bud and forced the premature blossom. 

As the boll- worms increase in size, a most wonderful diversity of color 
and marking becomes apparent. In color, different individuals will vary 



302 EEPOET UPON COTTON INSECTS. 

from a brilliant green to a deep pink or a dark brown, exhibiting almost 
every conceivable intermediate stage, and from an immaculate, unstriped 
specimen to one with regular spots and many stripes. The green worms 
are more common than those of any other color ; but those of varying 
shades of pink or brown are so abundant as to make it impossible to fix 
upon a type. Early in the season, as will be hereafter shown, the pre- 
vailing color is green. A common variety is light green in color. Eun- 
ning from tlie first ring back of the head to the posterior end of the body 
on each side is a broad whitish line; just above is a broad dusky line; 
down the center of the back is another dusky line, or stripe, as it 
should preferably be called ; this dorsal stripe has a narrow white line 
down its center, and it is bordered on each side by a narrow white line. 
Between the dusky dorsal and lateral stripes run four or five very 
faint, wavy, longitudinal, white lines, so faint as not to interfere with 
the general color of the body. Each body-ring has eight black spots, 
which, upon being examined with a lens, are seen to be tubercles, each 
with a stiff hair upon its tip. These spots are arranged in two transverse 
rows of four, the spots in the front row being slightly closer together than 
those in the back row ; the outer spot of the back row is small and 
placed nearer the front row. 

Of t'lese features the most constant seems to be the whitish stripe on 
each side. When the boll -worm is brown these stripes assume a yellow- 
ish hue. They are shown in all illustrations of the boll- worm yet pub- 
lished, and are present in all specimens in the department collection. 
Another pretty constant feature is the relative position of the tubercles 
just described. They are not always of a contrasting color to the rest 
of the back, and hence cannot always be spoken of as spots. When 
they are not discernible as spots, however, an examination with the lens 
shows them still present as tubercles, each surmounted by a hair. This 
point affords apparently a good and reliable means of distinguishing the 
young boll-worm from the young cotton-worm, which otherwise might 
prove a matter of difficulty during the earlier stages and in the early 
part of the year, before black cotton-worms are to be found. In the 
cotton-worm the two middle spots of each of the two rows of four are of 
the same distance apart, so as to form the four corners of a rectangle. 
In the boll- worm, however, the two middle spots of the hind row are 
more widely separated than the corresponding spots of the front row. 
This distinction may be recognized at a glance, when the eye has become 
accustomed to it. The dusky dorsal strii)e is often wanting, as also are 
the dusky lateral stripes, and, as just stated, the spots are often indis- 
cernible. 

Mrs. Treat seems to have noticed a uniformity of color as between 
individuals of the same brood, and a diversity as between those of dif- 
ferent broods. She says: 

I did not tliink that tliis greeu larva tliat eats into the pease and stalks of corn, be- 
fore the latter are haK grown, was, as you inform me, this same striped boll-worm 
that eats into the ears of corn. * * . » 



PEEDACEOUS HABITS OF BOLL- WORM. 303 

Such uniformity depending upon brood, or diversity from diversity 
of brood or food-plant, can by no means be laid down as a rule. The 
early brood, however, seems to consist almost entirely of green individ- 
uals, and those feeding ux)on other plants than corn and cotton are more 
usually green also. The pink individuals are more common upon cotton 
and the roasting-ears of corn. As Mrs. Treat has stated, a green worm 
may turn brownish after the later molts, but haJf-grovfu brown worms 
are very abundant in the bolls of cotton. In this connection, Mr. Glover 
states: • 

These variatious of color are not easily accounted for, as several caterpillars changed 
color without any apparent cause, beiug fed upon the same food and in the same box 
with others. Several planters assert that in the earlier jjart of the season the green 
worms are found in the greatest number, while the dark brown varieties are seen 
later in the autumn, as we know is also the case with the caterpillars of the cotton- 
worm. 

As already noted in Chapter YI, of Part I, the larva of Heliothis has. 
one redeeming character in its occasional cannibalistic and predaceous 
turn of mind. Boll-worms, when in confinement, have the habit, in 
common with other lepidopterous larvae, of devouring one another. All 
through the past summer larvae were being sent to the department from 
the South, but whenever more than one boll-worm were mailed in the 
same box, one only would reach us alive, all the others having been 
destroyed. This was the case even when the box was filled Avith cotton- 
leaves and bolls or corn-leaves. It might, however, be said that the 
food dried up on the journey, and that hence tliey were driven to destroy 
one another; but the fact is that even when confined inbreeding cages, 
where fresh food was always at hand and where the conditions were 
made as natural as possible, they seemed as hungry as ever for their 
comi)anions, and it was impossible to rear more than one in the same 
box or cage. 

Still more conclusive, however, and of extreme interest, is the fact 
that Mr. Trelease actually saw, upon several occasions, on the plant 
and undisturbed, large boll-worms catch smaller ones, which they de- 
voured " hoof and hide," or simply pierced the skin with their mandi- 
bles so that the juice could be sucked, the refuse being dropped. 

In addition to this we have the fact fully established during the past 
season that the boll- worm, in a state of nature, preys more or less fre- 
quently upon the chrysalis of the cotton-worm. We have already quoted, 
in an earlier part of the report, Mr. Trelease's observations upon this 
point, but it seems eminently proper that they should be repeated here: 

Owing to its tough integument, the pupa of Aletia seems to be freer from insect 
attack than the larva is, yet even its hard skin does not always save it. About the 
middle of August I first noticed what .appeared to be an anomalous preparation for 
IJupation in the boll-worm (Heliothis armigera), fori found several full-grown larvte of 
this species with leaves closely webbed around them, precisely as Aletia webs up be- 
fore changing to a pupa. An examinatiou of one of these leaves, however, showed 
me that the boll-worms had not webbed them about themselves, but had insinuated 



304 EEPOET UPON COTTON INSECTS. 

themselves into leaves folded and pre-occupied by Alelia, the latter having already 
passed into the pupa state, and they bad done this for the ex^n-ess piu'iiose of feeding 
on these pui»ae. Many cases of this sort tvere seen. 

In the specimens sent to tbe department, the fnll-grown boll-worm 
was fomid entirely within the folded leaf and the hind end of the body 
of the chrysalis was eaten into; and it certainly would be difficult to 
account for this on any other grounds than those taken in the quota- 
tion. We find also in the same report the following : 

No lepidopterous enemies of Alet'ia larvae were observed by myself, but Dr. Lock- 
wood,' of Carlowville, Ala., says that a number of years ago he saw a large green 
larva devouring numbers of cotton- caterpillars. From what we know of tlie habits 
of the boll-worm {HcliolMs armigera) it seems not unlikely that these larvte may have 
belonged to that species. 

Judging from the data at hand, the duration of the larva state of 
Jleliothis, or, in other words, the tcorm state, seems to vary from eighteen 
to twenty -four days in the cotton-belt, depending much upon the climate, 
the state of the weather, and the food phmt. AVhen full-grown it trans- 
forms to a chrysalis, with very different preliminaries from those which 
Ijreiiare the cotton- worm for pui)atiou. 

THE CHRYSALIS. 

Almost all of the statements regarding the i)upation of the boll- worm 
have been to the effect that the full-grown worm descends into the 
ground to the depth of several inches, and there forms itself an oval 
cocoon of gravel and earth, cemented together by its gummy silk. 

Prof. G. H. French, of Illinois, has studied the chrysalis of Heliothis 
carefully of late, and sums up his observations as follows : * 

In digging for tbe chrysalis around the com-hillf^, I found that instead of their oc- 
cui>ying an oval earthen cocoon, as has usually been written of them, and as they 
apparently do in the breeding box, they were down in the ground from five to six 
inches below the surface, in a hole about a third of an inch in diameter, reaching from 
the chrysalis to the top of the ground, where it was covered with a thin film of dirt 
from an eighth to a qiiarter of an inch thick. This hole was larger at the bottom than 
at the top, apparently so as to give full motion to the chrysalis, and usually bent in 
its course, so the lower part would have an inclination of perhaps forty-tive degrees. 
At the bottom would be found the chrysahs, the small end downward and the head 
upward. In one case I found the hole so bent that the chrjsalis occui)ied a horizontal 
position. The hole was smooth inside, and was, jierhaps, made so by cementing the 
earth together, but of that I could not tell, for the whole ground was moist, though 
dry enough to be firm. 

In reference to these observations of Professor French, Mr. Trelease 
says, in a recent letter: 

In deep breeding-jars, with four or five inches of loose soil, I found that tbe larvas 
of HeliotJiis went several inches from the surface before forming their cocoon, but did 
not notice a passage leading down. As I did not notice very closely, such a tube may 
have been there, but I think if so I should have seen some trace of it. In all cases 
there was a thin film of silk. In the field I saw numbers plowed up, but did not dig 
for any with care. Of course the plowing woidd have destroyed such a tube, but I 
sometimes found the silk about the pupa, though always more or less torn. 

* Seventh Report of the State Entomologist of Illinois, 1877, p. 105. 



DESCRIPTION OF THE CHRYSALIS. 305 

The rearing of boll-worms at the department would seem to show that 
in loose, friable earth the passage made by the worms in their descent 
becomes obliterated by the falling together of the earth behind them; 
but it seems i^robable that, in compact soil, any larva entering the 
ground would leave a round passage behind it. A thin film of silk has 
always been noticed lining the cell in which the chrysalis is found. 

In addition to the prominent distinguishing point that the chrysalis 
of Alefia is invariaby found only above ground, and is normally found 
in rolled leaf and slight cocoon, while the chrysalis of HeliotMs is in- 
variably found only below the surface of the ground, normally in a 
smooth shell, lined with a thin film of silk, it may be well to mention 
the characteristic points which distinguish the chrysalides themselves. 

The pupa of HeliotMs is reddish or light brown, 
and polished, and the pujia of Aletia dark brown, 
sometimes almost black, with the lower margin 
of the abdominal rings, 4 to 6, of a reddish-yel- 
low or saffron color; it is not polished, but has a 
greasy appearance. The pupa of HeliotMs is rather 
stout, and the last segment is rounded and fur- 
nished with two slender, straight spines. The 
pupa of Aletia, contrary to this, is quite slender, 
especially the abdomen; the last segment is not 
rounded, and its tip is prolonged into a tail-like ap- 
pendage, which bears at the tip 4 spines, the ends 
of which are ciu'ved so as to form a loop; four sim- -^ «_ _ ' , . , 
ilar spines are i)laced transversely in a row, a little, of chrysalis of Eeiio- 
in front of the terminal 4 hooks; this makes eight ''"^ ^'''''^ ^'^^«^- 
spines for Aletia and only two for HeliotMs: the stigmata or breathing- 
holes are rather conspicuous on the pai^a of HeliotMs, and sccarcely 
noticeable on the pupae of Aletia. 

We insert a detailed description of the chrysalis of the boll- worm, for 
the benefit of those interested : 

Heliothis armigera. — Pupa : Length, about 20™™ ; color, reddish brown, darker 
to wards the head ; j)olished. The following particulars will be noticed when exam- 
ined under the microscoiie : the head, which narrows in the region of the masilla? to a 
rounded, somewhat elevated ridge, is covered with minute and rather indistinct 
granulations, and has near the front a few shallow, transverse, impressed lines, which, 
however, do not entirely cross from one side to the other ; there are also a few irregu- 
lar impressions on the head behind the eye, and about midway between the posterior 
angle of the eye and the posterior margin of the head is an impressed puncture from 
which a very short stiff hair arises, and another shallow impression somewhat in the 
shape of a V may be found at the middle near the posterior margin; the sculpture of 
the thoracic segments is somewhat different from that of the head ; the whole surface is 
closely and very finely faceted, and quite a number of irregular, shallow, impressed 
transverse lines run over the whole surface ; the 3d ring is very much wrinkled ; the 
surface of the abdominal rings is similarly scul^itured ; the front margin of rings, 4-7, 
is coarsely punctured; the 4th has only few of these punctures, but on the other three 
rings they are quite numerous around the whole margin ; the front portion of these 
punctures is deep, and they run out posteriorly more or less into a shallow, channel- 
20 CI 




306 REPORT UPON COTTON INSECTS. 

like impression ; tlie posterior margin is covered quite regularly with slightly elevated, 
darker brown granules of diftcrent forms ; some are square, others five, and others 
sis-sided ; the other rings, except the last, have nothing peculiar in their structure ; 
the last segment is bluntly rounded, and furnished at the ends with two quite long, 
black, slender spines, which at their apical third are whitish, faintly bent upwards, 
with their tips sometimes slightly twisted and directed downward ; ventrally, this 
ring and the one before it have each a short, longitudinal impressed line ; the cu'- 
cumference of the stigmata is elevated, dark brown, with the center of a sandy color 
and spongy texture ; the cases of the wings, legs, and antennae are covered with 
shallow facets. 

THE MOTH. 

After the figure of the moth on Plate II, an additional extended descrip- 
tion will be unnecessary. It is a very variable species, and it is owing to 
this fact that American specimens were so long considered to form a 
species distinct from the European. In size the variation is not great, 
the smaller individuals having an expanse of wing of an inch and three 
eighths, and the larger ones expanding an inch and three quarters. 
The general color of the body and upper wings varies from a light gray 
tinged with olive green to a rich yellow gray, almost tawny. In some 
specimens the markings of the fore wings are almost obliterated, and 
in others they appear with great distinctness. On the hind wings there 
is much variation in the size of the light spot within the dark band; 
in some specimens it is not discernible, and in others its length equals 
half the breadth of the wing. The width of the black band of the pos- 
terior wings also varies greatly. The moth is so very different from 
Aletia that even a hasty glance at the plates will enable the planter to 
distinguish them. The most prominent distinguishing feature, and one 
that can be recogTiized at a glance, is the broad black band on the hind 
wings of the boll- worm moth. When at rest the latter does not tightly 
close its wings roof-shaped over its back, as does the cotton-worm moth, 
but holds them slightly open, so that the black band is plainly seen. 

The moths begin to fly shortly after sundown. During the day, when 
disturbed, they fly out with the quick darting motion peculiar to most 
uoctuids under such circumstances — a flight almost precisely like that 
of the cotton-moth. At night, however their flight is freer and more 
sustained. As has been noted of the adult Aletia, these moths feed at 
night upon the nectar secreted by the glands of the cotton-plant, the 
cow pea, the greater coffee-weed, and probably upon others. Their 
methods of feeding are almost precisely like those of the cotton- 
moth, the antennae being kept in constant vibration. They also, upon 
occasion, hover before a gland, steadying themselves by their fore legs- 
When at rest and sucking nectar, they do not, as before stated, fold the 
wings like Aletia, but keep them slightly raised and partly open. We 
have not heard of this moth being found to feed upon fruit as Aletia 
does, though it is probable that this may occur, as the tip of proboscis 
is spined in a somewhat similar manner. 



THE EARLY BROODS. 307 

THE NUMBER OF BROODS. 

The chrysalis of the boll-worm usually gives forth the perfect moth iu 
early May in the more southern portions of the cotton-belt. The eggs 
of these first moths are for the most part laid on the leaves of corn, 
though occasionally one is deposited upon the just-api)earing cotton 
plant, and others are laid upon the other food-plants to be found. By 
far the greater majority are laid upon the corn leaves ; and it is a rare 
occurrence to find a boll-worm upon cotton in the months of May and 
June. The individuals of this first brood of Reliothis upon corn are 
called, in many parts of the South, " terminal bud worms," the reason 
for which will shortly be shown. 

The newly hatched larvae begin feeding at once upon the corn leaves 
upon which they were born, and gnaw many small irregular holes 
through them, giving them the apijearance of having been riddled by a 
charge of small shot. Upon these external leaves of corn they may be 
found for some time, specimens upwards of half of an inch in length 
having been collected May 21. As they increase in size they progress 
downward into the closely folded leaf and, sooner or later, reach the 
tender terminal leaves or bud, where they do a very destructive work. 

The plants thus infested may be readily recognized by the riddled ap- 
pearance of the larger leaves. When such a stalk is found, if the leaves, 
beginning with the outermost, be stripi^ed ofl" nearly to the bases of their 
sheaths, a quantity of brown, dry excrement will be found, increasing 
in quantity as the center of the plant is api^roached, until at last the 
usually pale green worm is reached, either within the sheath of a leaf 
or in a cavity eaten into the closely rolled terminal leaves. When full 
grown, it gnaws a circular hole through the leaves directly outwards 
from the iioiut where it has been feeding and falls to the ground, where 
it transforms to a chrysalis, as before described. 

It is difficult to estimate the usual amount of damage done by the 
first brood, as it differs so mu6h in different localities. It seems, how- 
ever, never to be alarmingly great, on account of the comparatively 
small numbers. Observations on a small scale in Alabama showed 
about one j)lant in forty to be infested by them. 

The second brood makes its appearance in Alabama from the first to 
the middle of June. The eggs are, as before, for the most part laid upon 
the corn leaves. Some few are laid upon cotton — more, usually, than is 
the case Avith the first brood. The young larvae feed upon the leaves as 
before and upon the tassels. As they approach full growth they are 
found within the young ears, feeding upon the silk, the milky kernels as 
fast as they appear, and upon the tender cob. Upon reaching full size 
they bore through the shuck and fall to the ground. The moths of this 
second brood may be seen flying in considerable numbers in the earlj^ 
I)art of July. 

It is the next, the third brood proper, which does most damage to 



308 EEPORT UPON COTTON INSECTS. 

corn. This is called tlie " corn-'worm," tlie "ear-worm," the "tassel- 
worm." About the 1st of July the eggs are laid, probably near the end 
of the husk of corn. Very few eggs are laid upon cotton growing in the 
same field. The larvae feed upon the silk and tender grains near the 
ends of the ears, destroying many ears and rendering many others 
unfit for use. It is a noticeable fact that, while the individuals of the 
two earlier broods have for the most part varied little in color, being 
chiefly of a pale green, this third brood consists of worms of the various 
shades of green, pink, and rose. These larvae attain full growth prob- 
ably in the shortest time of any of the broods, and boring through the 
husks fall to the ground to pupate as before. 

By the 1st of August or thereabouts, when the time for a fourth brood 
has arrived, the ears of com have begun to harden, while cotton bolls 
and forms are very i)lentiful. Instinct teaches the moths of the third 
brood to lay their eggs upon cottoii instead of upon corn as their parents 
have done. We have mentioned the fact that a few worms are to be 
found upon cottoii previous to this time. An occasional individual will 
be found to have attained his growth on cotton in May, before a flower- 
bud has appeared, and which has evidently fed entirely upon cotton 
leaves. 

Mr. G. TV. Hazard, of Eutledge, Ala., makes the statement: "Bud- 
worms injure the cotton while very young, in cool wet springs, generally 
in the last of April and through May." 

Mr. Trelease found the first larvae eating the flower-buds or forms as 
early as June 11 ; but very few were found from this time on until the 
appearance of the fourth brood upon cotton, thus demonstrating plainly 
that a corn diet is much preferred so long as certain tender portions can 
be obtained. 

The habits of this fourth brood have already been given in the general 
remarks concerning the boll- worm upon cotton. It is by far the most 
destructive brood. About the 1st of September the moths of this brood 
are to be seen in great numbers at night sucking the nectar of cotton, 
cassia, and cow-pea. 

The fifth brood begins early in September, and is also confined to cot- 
ton. In all but the most southern i^ortions of the cotton-belt this brood 
appears normally to be the last, its chrysalides living through the win- 
ter in their underground cells. "With an exceptionally fine season it 
seems probable that there may be another brood, but ui)on this x)oint 
we have, as yet, no evidence. 

These remarks upon the number of broods are made from observa- 
tions the present year in Central Alabama, and the following facts must 
be taken into consideration : that the observations were limited geograph- 
ically to a single point, central, it is true, but were unconfirmed by ob- 
servations from other points. Moreover, 1879 was by no means a bad 
worm year. From opposite extremes of the cotton-belt we should ex- 
pect to find variation in opposing directions fi'om this as an average. In 



HIBERNATION. 309 

years wlien the worms were very numerous we should expect to find 
them infesting cotton at a period earlier than that which we have des- 
ignated, and where corn is not grown in the vicinity, they probably feed 
upon cotton from the first appearance of the flower-buds. These i)oints 
will account for the fact of the frequent early reports of the ravage of 
the boll-worm in cotton. 

The same difficulty also arises in ascertaining the precise number of 
broods of the boll-worm that was found with the cotton- worm. Some 
moths issuing from winter quarters later than others, or failing so soon 
to find a suitable place of deposit for their eggs, will lay their eggs later 
than others. Some larvae, moreover, may, by surrounding circumstances, 
fail to develop as fast as others. These and other points combined start 
an irregularity of the broods, the tendency of which is to continually 
increase rather than to diminish, until in the later generations upon cot- 
ton we may find them in all four stages at once — eggs, larvae of all sizes, 
chrysalides, and moths. The number and relative appearances of the 
broods normally, however, we believe to be that which we have given. 

The boll- worm disappears in the fall before the cotton-worm does. 
Mr. G-. W. Smith-Yaniz, of Canton, Miss., gathered eggs from one of 
which a larva hatched August 30. It became a chrysalis September 22, 
and passedthe winter in this state, issuing as a moth May 14. Another 
brood of the cotton-caterpillars was reared after this boll- worm went 
into winter quarters. 

In his Third Missouri Entomological Eeport, j). 107, Professor Eiley 
makes the statement: 

Most of the motlis issue in tlie fall and hibernate as such, but some of them pass the 
winter in the chrysalis state and. do not issue till the follo^ving spriug. I have known 
them to issue, in this latitude (38^° N.), after the 1st of November, when no frost had 
previously occurred. 

It may be true that HeliotJiis occasionally hibernates as a moth. No 
instance of such hibernation ha*s, however, come under our notice, nor 
do we find any other statement of this fact than this of Professor Riley's, 
just quoted. It is certain that the insect normally hibernates in the 
chrysalis state, and that if a hibernating moth is found it is an excep- 
tional occurrence. 

Many of the noctuidae hibernate as moths, and some, as, for instance, 
the army worm of the north {Hcliopliila unipuncta, Haworth), are sup- 
posed to winter either in the moth or chrysalis state. The latter ijoint 
is not yet definitely settled, however, and even if it were it would 
simply create a precedent, not necessarily a probability, in favor of a 
dual hibernation of ReliotMs. 

INFLUENCE OF WEATHER. 

It seems to be a pretty generally-settled point among planters, so far 
as we can ascerrain, that the boll-worm is influenced by the weather in 
a similar manner to Aletla; that is to say, that they flourish best in wet 



310 EEPORT UPON COTTON INSECTS. 

seasons, and in dry sunsliiny weather do least damage. The testimony 
on this point is hardly as unanimous as with the cotton- worm, but it is 
sufficiently so to enable us with justice to make the general statement. 
As to the causes which produce this result, we can do no better than to 
refer the reader to the discussion upon this point in chapter V of the 
previous Part. Mr. Trelease says in this connection : 

Like tlie cotton-caterpillar, the boll-worm is more abundant in wet than in dry places ; 
at least, such was my experience, and it is also said to do better in wet than in dry 
seasons. This is readily explained by the hostility of ants, which are more abund- 
ant in dry than in wet places, and in fair than in rainy seasons. 

Early in June several half-grown " bud-worms" were collected on Indian corn and 
transferred to cotton-plants with a view to watching their actions. Care was taken 
to place them upon plants on which there were no ants. . Seating myself beside them, 
I awaited developments. At first they evinced no desire to do more than conceal 
themselves beneath the leaves from the glare of the sun. But it was not long before 
a stray ant appeared on the plant, and, finding the larva, proceeded to run round and 
round it, biting it whenever it could. 

Soon, however, finding that unaided it could do little, the ant left the plant, and, 
after watching it a short time, I lost sight of it ; but in a few minutes it retirrned ac- 
companied by several others of the same species. In a little while the worm was so 
worried that it fell from the plant, and was soon killed and carried off by its tor- 
mentors, which followed it to the ground. 

Several times I saw this repeated, the boll- worm being killed in each case within an 
hour after the time when they were placed on the cotton. The black ant was also 
seen to kill these larvae upon several occasions, and once or twice when the worms had 
not been interfered with by me. 

Mr. Lyman, in Department of Agriculture report for 1866, says that 
many eggs of the boll-worm moth are destroyed by ants. 

The theory of the ants influencing the comparative abundance of 
worms in wet and dry weather is, as we have said before, an extremely 
plausible one if its basis be correct. There cannot be the slightest 
doubt bat that ants abound upon dry soil rather than upon that which 
is moist, and in dry, sunshiny weather rather than in rainy weather; nor 
can there be the slightestdoubtbut that many species destroy both cotton 
and boll worms. Then the theory will hold just so far as this destruction 
goes— just to the extent that the ants kill the worms. The fact that 
there is a slight difference of opinion as to the influence of the weather 
can then be easily explained by the comparative abundance of ants in 
different localities. The theory does not, however, entirely account for 
facts as observed, but will have to be taken in connection with the nectar- 
gland theory, as put forth in Part I, and also with the facts of the su- 
perior nourishing power of a tender and succulent plant, as compared 
with one dry and dwarfed from drought. 



CHAPTEE III. 

KEMEDIES. 
NATURAL REMEDIES. 

The remarks made in Chapter VI, of Part I, couceruing the efficacy of 
insectivorous birds and of predaceous insects will ajiply equally well' 
here. Strange to say, but one parasite ux)on Heliothis has been found. 
This was bred from a chrysalis received September 15, 1870, and proved 
to be Tacliina aletiae. (See Chap. VI, Part I.) 

Professor Eiley, in a foot note in his fourth Missouri report, mentions 
HeUothis armigera as being among the species from which he had bred 
Tacliina anonyma. (For the habits of the Tachina flies see Chai)ter VI, 
Part I.) 

As to actual observations upon birds, Mr. Glover says : 

Insectivorous birds also serve as very useful agents in tlie diminution of the boll- 
worm. In proof of this fact I will state that I have seen a king-bird, or bee-martin, 
chase and capture a boll-worm moth not ten paces from where I stood, and which I 
was in pursuit of at the same time ; also, that some young mocking-birds, kept in 
their nest near an open window, were fed daily by their parents with insects, among 
which were quantities of the boll- worm moth, as was proved by the ground undei- 
neath being strewn with their dissevered wings. 

It will be well to reconsult the list of birds given in the chapter above 
referied to in this connection. 

As to i)redaceous insect enemies, we have just referred in the last 
chapter to the most effective — the ants — and further discussion will be 
unnecessary. Of the others, those doing most good will probably be the 
w^asps, the asilus flies, the devil's coach-horses, the lady-bird larvae, and 
the golden-eyed lace-wing fly larvae. The ground-beetles will play a 
more important part, in all probability, in destroying the boll- worms 
than they do in destroying the cotton- worms, on account of the former 
descending into the ground to pupate. 

Mr. Glover gives an account of a spider which is said to destroy the 
boll- worm, in the following words : 

Another description of a small spider, about the tenth of an inch in length, of a light 
drab color, with two or more dark spots on its back, was found very numerous inside 
of the involucre or ruffle of the cotton-bloom, where it is said to be useful to the 
planter in destroying very young boll-worms. In many cases, where the eggs of the 
boll- worm moth had been deposited and hatched out, and the young worms had eaten 
through the outer calyx and already pierced a hole in the young bud or boll, it was 
frequently observed that no worm could be discovered inside ; but, upon opening such a 
ruffle, this small sj)ider was almost invariably found snugly ensconced in its web ; hence 
it was surmised that the young worm had entered between the ruffle and the boll or 
bud, and had been destroyed by the si^ider, the nest of which was found in such situa- 
tions. 

311 



312 EEPORT UPON COTTON INSECTS. 

ARTIFICIAl, REMEDIES. 

Topping. — Topping tlie cotton at a certain time of tlie year has been 
urged as a means of destroying the eggs both of the cotton-worm and 
and boll-worm moths. It has already been shown that this would not 
prove efficacious as a remedy for the cotton-worm, and the result would 
be the same with the boll- worm. It is true that some eggs would be 
destroyed in this way, but actual count has shown that the destruction 
of those eggs which are deposited upon the upper part of the plant 
would not pay for the labor of topping. 

Poisoning. — It has always been said that the strong point of the boll- 
worm lay in the fact that it worked within the boll where no jioison 
could reach it, and that this method of destruction would jirove of no 
avail. Our study of the habits of the insect has shown us, as before 
stated, that by far the greater number of the eggs are laid upon' the 
leaves, and that the newly-hatched larvae, before migrating to flower- 
buds or bolls, almost invariably feed to a greater or less extent uiion the 
leaf where they were born. This shows, then, that a well-distributed 
poisonous mixture would, in all i^robability, destroy gTcat numbers of the 
joung worms. Observation has also shown that well-grown boll- worms, 
migrating from boll to boll, are also frequently killed by eating poisoned 
leaves. There is, then, a double reason for poisoning worm-infested cot 
ton. The proper time for poisoning for the boll- worm, in regions where 
there is reason to suspect an extensive migration from corn to cotton, 
is a few days, say a week, after the full-grown worms are found in the 
hardening ears of corn, or when the moths are observed to fly abund- 
antly after the ear has begun to harden. The poisoning for the third 
brood prox)er of the cotton-worm and of the boll- worm may be done simul- 
taneously. 

Inasmuch as an extended discussion of poisons and methods of apply- 
ing has been given in Chapter VU, of Part I, any remarks on this head 
will be unnecessary. 

Hand-picking. — We should be far from advising any i^lanter to at- 
tempt to rid himself of the boll- worm by collecting them from cotton by 
hand. The plan which we do mean to suggest under this heading is 
lulling the earlier brood of the insect upon corn as a preventive against 
future injuries in cotton. 

This idea was first suggested by Col. B. A. Sorsby, as stated in the 
Department of Agriculture report for 1855 : 

Col. B. A. Sorsby, of Columbus, in Georgia, lias bred both these insects (com and 
l)oll worms) and declares them to be the same ; and, moreover, when, according to his 
advice, the corn was carefully ivormed on two or three i)lantations, the boll-worms did not 
make their appearance that season on the cotton, notwithstanding that on neighbori ng 
plantations they committed great ravages. 

Mr. E. Sanderson, in 1858, having come to the conclusion that the 
two insects were identical,* advised the early planting and forcing of 
* American Cotton Planter, November, 1858. 



DESTRUCTION OF EARLY BROODS. 313 

cotton and the late planting of alternate rows of corn, with the view 
of keeping the worms supphed with a stock of the food-jilant which 
they evidently preferred. 

In 1859, Mr. Peyton King, of Enterprise, in commenting upon Mr. 
Sanderson's paper, said : 

If tliey are tlie same, their ravages may be to a great extent lessened by tbe plan 
suggested by Mr. Sanderson — that of jjlauting the corn crop later. And to his plan 
I would suggest another — that of sending hands at the proper time through the corn 
for the purpose of opening slightly every ear with a dead silk, to extract and destroy 
the worm, and thereby destroy the miller. This might pay in reference to the corn 
alone.* 

No attention seems to have been paid to either of these suggestions, 
and the remedy has never come into use. 

The same idea suggested itself to me during my stay in the field in 
the summer of 1878, but, as I arrived in the latter part of July, I was 
only able to theorize. Mr. Trelease was instructed to pay attenton to 
this point, and in his report we find the following : 

Since the earliest broods of larvae are found on the maize or Indian corn, first in the 
stalk, later in the ears, and since the tendency of the species to multiply in geometrical 
progression makes it desirable to destroy the early broods if possible, I would suggest 
hand-picking of these earlier broods as the best way known to me of dealing with 
the j)est. As was stated when speaking of the natural history of Reliothis, if one of 
these larvae has taken up its abode in a stalk of corn, the fact can be detected by a 
very suj)erficial examination, owing to the holes formed in the leaves. Let, then, 
each plow-hand be instructed, when cultivating the corn, to stop whenever he finds 
such a stalk, and catch and kill the worm, even though it should occasionally be 
necessary to destroy the i^lant in doing this, for the hill may be replanted, and the 
larvae thus killed might, if suffered to live, become in a few generations the parent 
of hundreds of boll-worms. Later, after the corn is laid by and has begun to fruit, 
boys may be sent through the fields to kill the " tassel worms," the presence of which 
may be detected by the excrement at the end of the ear, or by the silk being eaten 
away. To catch these it will be only necessary to open the husk for a short distance 
back from the end of the ear, and, from the ease of discovering affected ears, the ex- 
pense will not be great. It is objected to this that ears so opened are exposed to the 
weather and to the attacks of birds. Though it must be admitted that this is true 
to a certain point, the destruction of all ears so interfered with does not follow, and 
the great lessening of the next crop of boll-worms will, I am certain, more than pay 
for what corn is sacrificed. 

The boll- worm cannot be expected to be exterminated by this process, 
since it has so many other food plants from which it could, at any time, 
migrate to corn or cotton ; but, inasmuch as corn appears to be its favorite 
food, its numbers could be very greatly lessened, and its injuries to cotton 
could be almost done away with by this process. We advise planters 
by all means to try it, and we assure them that their time will not be lost. 
In sections of the cotton-belt which are badly troubled with the boll- 
worm, and where com is not grown, it will be well to i)lant the latter 
crop and use it as a trap, as advised above. 

EoTATioN OF CROPS. — In the light of the relation of the corn an<l boll 
worms, and of the numerous food plants of Reliothis, we may here men- 

*Ibid, February, 1859. 



314 REPORT UPON COTTON INSECTS. 

tion tlie fact that rotation of crops lias been strongly urged as a preventive 
against the ravages of the boll- worm. The knowledge which we have 
gained of the miiltivoroiis habits of the insect readily shows ns that 
such a course would be vain, as during the season when cotton was not 
grown some other food-plant would be available. As a curiosity we may 
mention the fact that some years ago a writer in the Southern Cultiva- 
tor, after earnestly urging rotation of crojis, advises corn as the host crop 
to rotate with cotton ! 

Destruction of the chrysalides. — In the more southern portions 
of the cotton belt, where the frosts are rarely severe, but little can be 
done toward the destruction of the chrysalides beyond instructing the 
l^low-hands to crush them whenever they observe them in plowing, or 
causing a boy to follow the plow and collect them as they are brought 
to the surface. In the more northern portions, however, fallploicing 
may accomplish much good. Experiments, having the testing of the 
eflBcacy of this remedy in view, have been made by Professor French. 
We can do no better than to give his own words : 

Fall plowing. — To make it plain how this is to reach them, I shall have to explain 
some observations made on the fall brood of chrjsalicles that were found during the 
month of November in a field where the worms had been very abundant in the com 
before it was harvested. In digging for the chrysalides round the corn-hills, I found 
that instead of their occupying an os^^al earthen cocoon, as has usually been written 
of them, and as they apparently do in the breeding-box, they were down in the ground 
from five to six inches below the sxirface, in a hole about a third of an inch in diameter, 
reaching from the chrysalis to the top of the ground, where it was covered over with 
a thin film of dirt from an eighth to a quarter of an inch thick. This hole was larger 
at the bottom than at the top, apparently so as to give free motion to the chrysalis, 
and usually bent in its course, so that the lower part would have an inclination of 
perhaps forty-five degrees. At the bottom would bo found the chrysalis, the small 
end downward and the head uj)ward. 

In one case I found the hole so bent that the chrysalis occupied a horizontal position. 
The hole was smooth inside, and was perhaps made so by cementing the dirt together; 
but of that I could not tell, for the whole ground was moist, though diy enough to be 
firm. I took several of the chrysalides and put them in a box with some loose dirt, 
and then moistened it, after which I allowed them to freeze. The dirt, when they 
were allowed to freeze, was dry enough, so that if it had been in the garden and 
turned over with a si^ado it would crumble. When examined, after the freezing, all 
were dead. Some others taken up in the bottom of their subterranean habitations, 
without sifting the loose earth roimd them in their holes, and allowed to freeze, were 
not killed by freezing. 

My conclusions were, that so long as they were in the smooth compartments they 
had made for themselves, free from any loose dirt that would became wet and stick to 
them, they could pass the winter in safety, even though they might be frozen ; but, 
when the dirt was j>acked loosely round them and became wet and stuck to them, then 
freezing killed them. Their holes, running cell-like as they do from the surface down 
into the ground five or six inches, must be broken uj) by plowing, and when once 
broken up with the loose- dirt round them the rains and the freezing winter weather 
would have the same eftect on the chrysalides that moisture and freezing had on those 
in the box of loose dirt. Fall plowing, then, for these reasons, will probably be the 
most efficient means of destroying these insects ; besides, if done late enough^ it will 
rid the ground of cut-worms, «fcc. 



DESTRUCTION OF MOTHS. 315 

Destruction of the moths. — It is the general opinion tbronghout 
tlie South that the best if not the only way of getting rid of the boll- 
worin is by the use of lights and poisoned sweets for attracting the 
moths. Several correspondents even go so far as to say that the rav- 
ages of the worms can always be checked by attracting the moths with 
lights. Colonel Sorsby always had great success in killing these moths 
with molasses and vinegar. He says : * 

We procured eighteen common-sized dinner plat«s, into each of which we put half 
a gill of vinegar and molasses, previously prepared in the proportion of four parts of 
the former to one of the latter. These plates were set on small stakes or poles driven 
into the ground in the cotton-field, one to about each three acres, and reaching a little 
above the cotton-plant, with a six-inch square board tacked on top to receive the 
plate. These arrangements were made in the evening, soon after the flies had made 
their appearance ; the next morning we found eighteen to thirty-five moths to each 
plate. The experiment was continued for five or six days, distributing the plates over 
the entire field, each days' success increasing, until the numbers were reduced to two 
or three moths to each plate, when it was abandoned as being no longer worthy of the 
trouble. The crop that year was but very little injured by the boll-worm. The flies 
were caught in their eagerness to feed upon the mixture by alighting into it and being 
unable to escape. They were probably attracted by the odor of the preparation, the 
vinegar probably being an important agent in the matter. As the flies feed only at 
night, the plates should be visited late every evening, the insects taken out, and the 
vessels replenished as circumstances may require. I have tried the experiment witli 
results equally satisfactory, and shall continue it until a better one is adopted. 

The boll-worm moths api^ear to be attracted to the same sweets as 
the cotton-moths, and are equally attracted to light. It follows, then, 
that the remarks made in Chapter VII, Part I, will apx)ly equally well 
here, and that the devices there recommended for the destruction of the 
cotton-moth may be here recommended for the destruction of the boll- 
worm moth. 

* Department of Agriculture Report, 1855, p. 285. 



P^RT III. 



NECTAR AND ITS USES. 



317 



PLATE III.— DESCRIPTION OF FIGURES. 

I. Vertical-longitudinal section of nectar gland from petiole of Bieinus communis 
(x8). 
II. Vertical transverse section of tlie same near the distal end of the true gland 

(x8). 
III. A portion of I, more highly magnified (s 100). 
lY. Vertical transverse section of gland from mid-rib of a leaf of Goesj/jwitwi herha- 

ceiim (x 17). 
V. A portion of IV, more higlily magnified (x 100). 
VI. Flower cluster oi Marcgravia nepenthoides, reduced. 
VII. Involucrate cluster of flowers of Poinscttia 2)ulcher7ima, in the stamiuate state, 

natural size. 
VIII. The same at an earlier period, while in the pistillate state. 
IX. Vertical section of a cluster in which the pistil is abortive, in the staminate 

state, natural size. 
X. The same, entire. 

XI. Double petiolar gland oi Bieinus cotnmunis, seen from above, natural size. 
XII. The same, from the side. 

XIII. Double involucre of Gossypium licrhaceum, natural size, one of the bracts of the 
inner wheel. 
In all of the figures, a indicates the adenophore ; c, the epidermis ; /, the fibro vas- 
cular bundle; g, the gland proper; ?, the lamina of the leaf; o, the ovary; p, the 
petiole. 

318 



Plate in. 








/ 3_._ HO- 



:siiL 



\ 1 









"VWn.Trealease del. 



AHoen&ColifhocausticJJallimore 



NECTAR; WHAT IT IS, AND SOME OF ITS USES.* 



[As the investigation of cotton insects has progressed, the importance 
of the nectar glands of cotton in their influence upon the natural enemies 
of the Cotton and boll worms, has gradually become more and more ap- 
parent, until at last it seemed imperative that some space should be 
devoted in the report to a consideration of the general subject of nectar. 
The following chapter was, therefore, prepared, at my request, by Mr. 
William Trelease, who has made the subject of the mutual relations of 
plants and insects a special study. — J. H. C] 

Though as a scientific word it should possess precision, the word 
nectar is far from conveying one idea when met with in the writings 
of different authors. Purely mythological with most of the Greek and 
Eoman writers, it signified the beverage of the gods. By Virgil it was 
used apparently much as we now use it. "Others [of the bees] com- 
press the clearest honey, and swell out the cells with liquid nectar." t 

Linnoeus defined a nectary as a ^^pars mellifera flori propria^'''' whence 
nectar is a honey-like substance produced by such a floral gland. Dr. 
Gray defines the word as follows : " Nectar: the honey, &c., secreted by 
glands or by any part of the corolla" ;| or, again, " IsTectar: the sweetish 
secretions by various parts of the blossom, from which bees make 
honey." § Sachs says, " Glandular organs are found in the flowers which 
secrete odorous and sapid (generally sweet) juices, or contain them 
within their delicate cellular tissue, from which they are easily sucked 

* Since nectar ia found in several parts of the cotton plant, and presents some 
peculiar phenomena there, it has been thought best that I should treat briefly in this 
place of its occurrence and economic value ; hence the present essay. My plan has 
been to indicate what I understand by the word nectar; to describe some of the more 
instructive instances of its occurrence, in an order depending entirely upon the 
nectariferous organs ; to then arrange these according to the purpose which the nectar 
serves in each case ; to discuss some of the cases more at length ; and, finally, to 
briefly mention the habits of some nectar-loving animals when in quest of this bever- 
age. Though limited time and prolonged ill-health have prevented me from making 
this essay what I had wished it to be, I trust that it may not be found wanting in 
what it professes to be — an outline of the uses of nectar as we now understand them. 

WM. TRELEASE. 

Ithaca, N. Y., November 12, 1879. 

tGeorgics, iv, 1. 164. 

t Lessons in Botany, 1868, p. 222. 

§ Structural Botany, 1879, p. 421. 

319 



320 EEPORT UPON COTTON INSECTS. 

out. These juices are included uuder tlie term nectar."* Delpiuo pro- 
poses to replace the Linnsean definition of a nectary by the following : 
'■'^ Pars mcUlfera ])lantarum angiosjjermarum propria ^^ ;\ whence nectar is 
a honey-like fluid j^roduced by such glands situated anywhere on an 
angiospermous plant. This not only excludes honey-dew, which Delpino 
regards as a pathological symptom, but also the nectar which Francis 
Darwin has found secreted by true glands on Pteris aquilina, a fern. 
Darwin I discusses the case of some Orchid flowers which contain a 
sweet fluid between the walls of their nectaries, whence it is abstracted 
by insects after they have pierced these walls. This fluid is spoken of 
by him as nectar. Eeinke defines nectar as " a clear fluid of sweet 
taste, elaboiated by certain aerial parts of plants." § 

Though the ehmination of a sweet fluid (honey-dew) on the leaves of 
plants maybe due to a diseased condition of the leaves in many instances, 
yet as it is of frequent occurrence, and as the nectar in the last case 
mentioned is not elaborated by speciahzed glands, it seems best that 
this should also be included in a definition of nectar. The following defi- 
nition is, therefore, proposed in. the belief that it comprehends all of im- 
portance that any previous definition has included, and nothing — save the 
honey-dew, just mentioned — not included by some good authority. I^Tec- 
TAR : a fluid always sai)id, usually sweet, often odorous, which is elabo- 
rated in any part of a plant, remaining where formed or making its w^ay to 
some other part ; its raison (Vetre being the necessity for the removal of 
some useless or injurious substance, or for some provision to attract nectar- 
loving aniumls to the plant for some definite purpose. 

It has long been known that specialized organs for the elaboration of 
nectar — nectar glands — exist in the flowers of many i^lants as well as 
outside of the floral envelopes of some. These glands, when occurring 
outside of the flower, always consist of modified epidermal tissue, as 
shown by Martinet: they may be said to be made up of an inactive 
supporting portion, the adenophore of Martinet (PI. Ill, Figs. 1, 5, a), and 
of an active superficial portion, the gland pro])er (PL III, Figs. 1-5, g). 
These glandular cells are far diflerent from the epidermal cells of which 
they are but modifications ; thus, in glands from the i^etiole of the cas- 
tor-oil plant I found them to be divided b}^ transverse septa ; and in the 
foliar glands of the cotton plant to be marked by coarse reticulations on 
their walls, making them appear at first sight as though not simple cells. 
In the latter case, too, then' distal portions are quite separate from each 
other, so that they resemble, to a certain extent, crowded villi. Within 
the flower, glands may be of varied structure, sometimes superficial, 
sometimes deep, possessing less uniformity than elsewhere. 

According to their situation, these glands maybe either floral or extra- 
floral; the former occurring within the floral envelopes, the latter, without 

*Text Book of Botany, English translation, 1875, p. 500. 

tUlteriori Osservazione, 1875, p. 85. 

t Fertilization of Orchids, 2cl edition, pji. 3G-44. 

$ Pringsheini's JahrbUchtr fur iviss. Bot., 1875, x 119, note. 



NECTAR AND ITS USES. 321 

them. Floral glands may occur as modiflcatious or appendages of any 
of the floral organs ; extrafloral glands may occur as modifications or 
appendages of the outer floral envelope, or of various extra floral organs, 
as shown in the following table : 

^ Eeceptacle. 
Pistil. 
Stamens. 
Corolla. 
I Calyx. 
{ Calyx. 
Ordiuarv bracts. 



Floral. 



Specialized bracts, 
^^^^^fi^^^l-^ Involucre. 
I Peduncle. 
[Leaf. 

The secretion of glands of the first group seems always designed to 
aid in the fertilization of the flowers in which it is produced by attract- 
ing to them insects or birds, which, by reason of some floral adaptation, 
while feeding on the nectar, or on small insects likewise attracted to it, 
unconsciously transfer pollen from the anthers to the stigma of this or 
some other flower of the same species. Some of these flowers are of an 
open structure, with their nectar accessible to insects of all sorts and 
sizes; others are of such size and form as to be limited to certain groups 
of insects, sometimes even so restricted as genera. Some are so formed 
that fertilization is possible by direct pollination without extraneous 
aid; others never x)roduce offs])ring unless they receive such aid. So 
much has been written concerning floral nectar and its uses that I shall 
give but one example under this head, the flower of the cotton plant. 

The cotton flower is very fugacious ; opening shortly after sunrise, it 
has passed its prime before sunset, and by the end of the second day 
the corolla and stamens have usually fallen to the ground.* 

*As is well known, the corolla of ono of these flowers is creamy white ou opening; 
later in the same day it becomes more or less tinged with pink or rose, which becomes 
a nuiform deep rose on the second day. As will presently be shown, these flowers are 
not dependent on insect aid for their fertilization, yet the great size and consi)icuous 
color of their corolla indicates to the believer in the commonly accepted theory of the 
evolntion of floral forms that this has not always been the case; in other words, that 
there was a time when, for some purpose, they needed to attract insects or other 
animals, to which their showy corollas rendered them visible from a distance. But 
why should the color change so markedly as the flower advances in .nge? There is 
reason for believing that fertilization occurs during the first day of blooming, and 
this being the case insects are not needed by any flower more than one day old. Many 
other cases could be given where the color of a corolla changes and becomes intensified 
afte];tho fertilization of the flower to which it belongs, but it is mmecessary to more 
than mention them here. The most satisfactory explanation of this phenomenon that 
is known to me is that by their varied, lasting, and augmented coloration they attract 
llower-hauntiug animals to the plant. These instinctively, or by expericiice, visit 
only the younger flowers, readily distinguishable by their color from the older ones. 
See Nature, ix, 460, 484; x, 5; xvii, 78; and Delpino, Ult. Oss., 1875, p. 28. 
21c I 



322 EEPORT UPON COTTON INSECTS. 

The reproductive organs are so placed that on the exj)aDsioii of the 
corolla pollen has usually been deposited on the stigmas, self-fertiliza- 
tion being thus secured. By his many observations and experiments, 
Darwin has shown that where self-fertilization is thus provided for, oc- 
casional crossing is often of sufficient importance to warrant the pro- 
duction of large and conspicuous corollas, and of nectar accompanied by 
fragrance to secure such crossing by inducing suitable animals to go 
from flower to flower. Such appears to have been the case here, for 
within the corolla, where the petals separate from one another and from 
the stamina! column, is found a set of small hairs which are slightly 
viscid as shown by the adhesion of pollen grains to them. What causes 
this viscidity f Early in July I noticed a single hive bee within a cot- 
ton flower, where, as I then supposed, it had gone to collect pollen, 
but I failed to see that it did. About the same time I saw many hum- 
ble-bees entering the flowers for pollen as I thought, and they, too, went 
unnoticed, though they transferred much pollen from flower to flower in 
these visits. Shortly afterward I noticed certain sand-wasps belonging 
to the genus Ulis within the flowers, and as I did not know that they 
fed on pollen I was led to watch their actions. Instead of collecting 
this substance they were ex])loring with their tongues the clefts between 
the petals; this led me to examine a flower more closely, the result 
being the finding of the hairs just mentioned. As no nectar was found 
elsewhere in the flowers, and as these insects were constant in their 
visits, I infer that viscidity of the hairs is caused by an exudation of 
true nectar. * Darwin describes a similar secretion from hairs on the 
labellum of CypripediumA 

Numbers of specimens of the beetle Chauliognathus marginatus were 
found Avithin the flowers, where, however, they ate only pollen, so far 
as I could see. Individuals of the yellow butterfly CalUdryas eubule 
■were often seen resting on the free border of the petals and sipi)iug the 
nectar with their long and flexible proboscides. The following-named 
insects were all seen in greater or loss numbers in the flowers after 
nectar : Ulis A-notata, EUs ijlumijjes^ McUssodes nigra^ McgacMle sp., and 
Bomhus sp. 

In thus collecting j)ollen and nectar, these insects, with the exception 
of the butterfly, coming in contact with both anthers and stigmas, became 
well dusted with pollen, which necessarily was transferred in quantity 
from flower to flower. The species most frequently met with in these 
flowers were JEUs phimipcs S and McUssodes nigra. 

As an example of extrafloral nectar produced on the calyx, I shall 
cite that of the leguminous plant, Goronilla varia, described hy Farrer. | 

'' In the Popular Science Review for July, 18G9, p, 270, Ogle states that, as previously 
noticed by Vaucher, no nectaries are found in Synacnic Malvacere. This appears to 
he an exception to that rule, for, so far as I could see, the stigmas were perfectly re- 
ceptive vhcn the corolla expanded. 

t Fertilization of Orchids, second edition, p. 229. 

t Nature, x, 1874, p. 1G9. 



NECTAR AND ITS USES. 323 

Here the outer surface of the calyx is covered with small glands, the 
secretion of which attracts bees to the flower ; but, strangely enough, 
instead of alighting directly on the calyx and lapping up the nectar, 
they settle on the wings and keel, whence they protrude their tongues 
back into the flower and out between the separated bases of the petals, 
thus indirectly reaching the nectar on the calyx. Despite their usual 
intelligence, we are led to the conclusion that in this case the bees are 
deceived, believing the nectar to be within the flower, as is the case in 
so many of the Leguminosa?, instead of on its exterior. But this decep- 
tion, if deception it be, is of value to the i)lant, for in resting on the 
wings and keel the bees depress these petals, bringing their breasts in 
contact with stigma and pollen, and effecting the cross-fertilization of 
different flowers, in their visits from plant to plant. 

Another example is afforded by the cucurbitaceous plant cultivated 
in the South, under the name of bonnet-squash or dish-rag plant. Each 
lobe of the calyx has on its outer side a varying number of glands, which 
secrete nectar for some time before the flower opens during the period 
of blooming, and for some time after fecundation has occurred. This 
nectar is so greedily sought by ants of several species that numbers of 
them are to be found at all times on every calyx which is in active secre- 
tion, but they seldom enter the flower, apparently being i^re vented from 
doing so by the large, spreading corolla. 

The common passion-flower or May-pop of the South {Passijlora 
incarnata) affords a good illustration of nectar occurring on small, unmod- 
ified bracts. At the base of every flower are found three or four small 
bracts, each bearing two large nectar glands. Though the secretion of 
these is not very plentiful, it is sufficiently so to attract swarms of ants, 
which, as in the last case, do not enter the flowers, ai:)parently finding 
the spreading sepals and petals and the dense corona insurmountable 
obstacles. 

In the tropical Marcgravig, nepefitJioides (PI. Ill, Fig. G), Belt tells us 
that "the flowers are disposed in a circle, hanging downwards, like an 
inverted candelabrum. From the center of the circle of flowers is sus- 
pended a number of pitcher-like vessels, which, when the flowers expand, 
in February and March, are filled with a sweetish liquid. This liquid 
attracts insects, and the insects numerous insectivorous birds. The 
flowers are so disposed, with the stamens hanging downwards, that the 
birds, to get at the pitchers, must brush against them, and thus convey 
the pollen from one plant to another."* These pitcher-like vessels are 
modified leaves or bracts, the nectar of each gland being secreted inside 
a sort of pouch, and passing to the surface through two pores or ducts.t 

Good examjdes of nectar borne on bracts collected into an involucre 
are afforded by some of the Euphorbias. Thus in E. {Poinsettia) pul- 

* Naturalist in Nicaragua, 1874, p. 128. 

tFor tlie structure of these glands see Wittmack, BotaniscJie Zeitung, No. 35, Aug., 
1879, s. 557. 



324 EEPOET UPON COTTON INSECTS. 

clierrima (PI. Ill, Figs. 7-10), the flowers are collected into clusters consist- 
ing of a central, stalked, pistillate flower, surrounded by a varying 
number of stalked monandrous staminate flowers, the whole cluster beihg 
inclosed in an involucre so as to resemble somewhat a single flower. On 
the side of each involucre is a large, yellowisli, cup-shaped gland, which 
secretes a considerable quantity of nectar during the blooming period of 
the cluster to which it belongs. In the house this is sought by myriads 
of the small red ant Myrmica molesfa, and in the open air of its native 
place probably by small bees and flies such as are known to visit other 
Euphorbias. When one of these clusters begins to expand the pistillate 
flower at its center is protruded (PI. Ill, Fig. 8, o), and expands its three 
bilobed stigmas, which are ready for fecundation. A few days later, 
these havhig withered, the stalk of the pistillate flower becomes suffi- 
ciently elongated to protrude the entire ovary * (PI. Ill, Fig. 7, o), and by 
this time several of the stamens have become exserted and shed their 
pollen. From this it appears that in tliis species self-fertilization is im- 
possible, since there are no ])erfect flowers ; the first remove from this, 
crossing between flowers of the same cluster, is likewise impossible, 
owing to the maturing of the pistiUate flower before any of the stamin- 
ate flowers are mature; and the closest cross that can occur is between 
different clusters on tlie same plant, which, as appears from the crowded 
structure of these clusters, is about equivalent to crossing diflerent 
flowers on the same plant of such a species as the Marcgravia figured, 
for a number of these involucrate clusters are collected together and 
surrounded by a whorl of bright crimson bracts, rendering the whole 
A^ery conspicuous to such insects as are in search of nectar. These in- 
sects, in obtaining the nectar, necessarily brush the floral organs and 
must secure the cross fertilization of the species. 

Another example of nectar borne on a floral involucre is afforded by 
the cotton plant, where each flower is surrounded by a whorl of three 
large laciniate bracts, on the outside of eaoh of which, near its base, is 
a nectariferous pit.t 

Alternating with these bracts, and just within the circle formed by 
their bases, are three other pits, smaller than the former, but like them, 
active.| 

The first few flowers that open possess only rudiments of glands; but 

* lu cultivation the pistillate flower is often entirely aboi'tive (Figs. 9 and 10), and 
its ovules seem to be always aborted in our greenhouses, for tliougb an abundance of 
apparently good pollen is produced I cannot learn that the species ever set seed witli 
us. My authority for this failure to set seed is Peter Henderson, the -well-known New 
York florist. See Gray, Silli man's Journal, 3d series, xiii, 1877, p. 138; and some notes 
by myself, Bulletin Torry Botanical Club, vi, 1879, p. 344. 

t Glover, Agricultural Report, 1855, p. 234, mentions these glands, as well as the inner 
set and their secretion of a " sweet substance, which ants, bees, wasps, and plant-bugs 
avail themselves of as food." 

IThese glands belong, in reality, to an inner whorl of three bracts, alternating with 
the outer ones, but generally wanting. In stunted plants, especially as cold weather 
comes on, one or more of these inner bracts may often be found. ((PI. Ill, Fig. 13.) 



NECTAR AND ITS USES. 325 

all after the first few possess the outer set, though it is not till the cot- 
ton has been blooming about a month that the inner set appear. Con- 
fining our observations to llowors wliich possess both sets fully devel- 
oped, we find that a number of days before a flower-bud opens all of its 
involucral glands are visited more or less frequently by ants, and occa- 
sioncUy a wasj) or hive bee may be seen about them, although to our 
eyes they are dry. Evidently, then, they secrete a thin sugary film. 
The evening before such a bud opens, its visitors increase in number, 
and we may, perhaps, see a little nectar in its glands. But during the 
night preceding its unfohling,its cups fill out with ihe sweet fluid which 
is collected by large numbers of ants, and early the next morning a 
large drop may be seen suspended from the lower margin of each, or in 
some cases running down the bract ; and throughout this, which may be 
called the day of blooming, bees, wasps, and ants of many species may 
be found in constant attendance on the glands. Though drawn so close 
to the flowers, these insects never enter them, so they can have no direct 
influence on their fertilization. Perhaps the strangest thing about these 
glands is, that during the night, when this abundance of nectar is col- 
lecting, they are visited by thousands of the moths of Aletia argillacea 
iind HcUothis an»/f/e>'« whenever these moths are flying and laying their 
eggs. This appears to be a strange pai-adox. Nectar is secreted ap- 
liarently to attract insects to a plant ; and some of the insects so at- 
tracted have the instinct to oviposit on the plant, on the foliage, flowers, 
and fruit of which their larvae feed. How could this secretion have 
been acquired by natural selection ? It looks as if such an acquisition 
must imply the survival of the unfittest! As has been shown elsewhere, 
the flowers of the cotton plant suffer from the attacks of the larvae of 
both these moths ; but most of the eggs of both species are laid on other 
parts of the plant than the flowers or floral appendages, consequently 
a larva to reach the flower must ascend the peduncle, and run the gaunt- 
let of ants, wasps, and bees found at its summit; though I never saw 
one ascending when these insects were at their post, and therefore never 
had an opportunity to see what would happen then. I found that when 
these larvae are on the leaves of the plant they are sometimes attacked 
and killed by the ants without any provocation. So it appears that the 
secretion of these glands first attracts the worst enemies of the plant, 
and then attracts their enemies, which afford it partial relief from the 
misfortune that it has brought on itself. 

An example of nectar secreted on the flower-stalk is found in the cow- 
pea. At the summit of each peduncle are several small, crater- shaped, 
circumvallate glands, which secrete until the fruit is well advanced 
toward maturity, as well as during the flowering period. Occupying, as 
they do, the very end of the peduncle, they are beyond the clustered 
flowers and seed-vessels. In Alabama I found that they are much fre- 
quented by ants of several species. Like the cotton plant, the cow-pea 
is visited by the moths of both Aletia and MeUotkiSj but only the latter 



326 REPORT UPON COTTON INSECTS. 

ovij)osits on it, and this in but small numbers, its larvae feeding on the 
green seeds. The same complication, therefore, exists here as in the case 
of the cotton plant ; but in this case the attack appears to be limited to 
the early fruiting period, and a body-guard of ants is maintained during 
this period. 

Coming, now, to leaves, we may briefly refer to the sweet fluid known 
as honey-dew, which is sometimes found on the foliage of plants. In 
many cases this will be found not to originate in the leaves, but to drip 
from the anal tubes of aphides, or plant-lice ; and with this we have 
nothing to do, since it is not a production of the plant. But in some 
cases this substance is an excretion from the leaves, apparently due 
either to the climatic conditions obtaining at the time of its production 
or to a diseased state of the plant. It is not, so far as I know, i^roduced 
by structures, such as glands, in any case. Though bees and ants col- 
lect this substance with avidity', it does not appear that they render the 
lilant any service while doing so.* 

Small glands are found at the tips of ihe serrations on the leaves of 
many plants, and some of these produce a plentiful supply of nectar ; 
some of them being frequently visited by insects, and others scarcely at 
all. Like the last, this nectar is believed by Darwin to be merely ex- 
cretory, and as going to show that such is the case we may mention the 
fact that the leaves of peaches, nectarines, and apricots — which may be 
glandular in some, and not glandular in others of the offspring of a 
single parent — if glandular, are less Kable to the attacks of mildew than 
if they bear no glands.t 

Leighton found that — 

On the Tipper edge of the vertical pliyllodia of Acacia viagnifica, siihtending the 
showy spikes of yellow flowers, which proceed from their axils, appeared a pellucid 
drop of liquid, A'arying in size from that of a large pin's head to that of a grain of 
mustard-sped. This to the taste was sweet and sugary. The flowers themselves had 
no odor, except toward nightfall, when they gave out a weak disagreeable smell, only 
perceptible on close contact. In wiping off" the sugary secretion it was observed that 
ir iiroceeded from a small sunken liuear-oblong orifice or slit, surrounded by a swollen 
margin. * * * The secretion takes place only during the period that the plant is 
in blossom. So soon as the flowers fade and begin to fall, the secretion ceases and 
disappears. It would seem then to be in some way or other connected Avith the fer- 
tilization of the flower ; and as, when the secretion becomes excessive, it falls and 
blotches the lateral expansion of the phyllodium, it is probably to attract insects to 
efi'ect this, * * * it seems almost evident that it would reciuiro an insect of some 
considerable size and of some peculiar structure to remove and apply the pollen, the 
secretion not beiug m the blossom itself, but at a short distance from it, on the phyl- 
lodium.t 

This case appears quite similar to that of the cotton flower previously 
given, and I cannot avoid the conclusion that the real object of the nec- 

* Darwin, Cross and Self Fertilization, 1877, page 402, mentions undoubted cases of 
the occuiTeuce of this excretion, besides giving references to other writings bearing 
on this point. 

t For references on this subject see Darwiu, Animals and Plants under Domestica- 
tion, Orange Judd edition, 18CP, i, 413: it, 280. 

+ Annals of Natural History, third series, xvi, 1865, page 12. 



NECTAR AND ITS USES. 327 

tar was to secure protection to the flowers, rather than to secure their 
fertilization, though the latter might occasionally occur incidentally. 

On the lower surfiice of the leaf of the cotton plant, not far from its 
base, the mid-rib bears a large sunken nectar gland, and each of the lat- 
eral veins of the larger leaves bears a similar gland.* Traces of these 
glands may sometimes be found on the cotyledons, but I never saw a 
perfect gland on a seed-leaf. As shown by the visits of ants, the gland 
of the first leaf begins to secrete when the seedling plant has about four 
leaves expanded 5 but it is not till some days later that enough nectar is 
produced to be noticeable, and from this time on the gland secretes 
abundantly until the leaf becomes old or diseased. When a gland is in 
vigorous secretion it may be examined at almost any time of the day, 
and barely enough fluid will be found in it to fill the pit two-thirds full; 
but during the night, and until some time after sunrise in the morning, 
great drops of the sweet fluid may be found hanging from its border. 
This nectar is very attractive to certain insects, chiefly ants, wasps, and 
mud-daubers. It is also sought at night by the moths of both Aletia 
and HeliotMs, the former of which had been seen to alternate sipping 
this nectar with ovipositing. As I have elsewhere stated, the larvae of 
both these moths feed on the leaves of this plant, and both have been 
attacked, removed from the plant, and killed before my eyes by ants or 
wasps induced by tfds nectar to visit the leaves. 

On the lamina of the leaves of the bonnet squash a variable number of 
pustule-like glands is found. These secrete an abundance of nectar, and 
are constantly attended by ants of several species, which, from the dis- 
tribution of the glands, are led to explore every inch of the leaf-surface. 
I only found that the leaves of this plant were attacked by the larvae and 
imagines of the large lady-bird, Epilaclma horeaUs, and as very few of 
these were seen on them I could not determine their relations with the 
ants. 

In Acacia spha;rocep1iala, the bull's-horn thorn, Mr. Belt tells us that — 

The leaves are bipinnate. At the base of each pair of leaflets, on the mid-rib, is a 
crater-formed gland, which, when the leaves are young, secretes a honey-like liquid. 
Of this the ants are very fond, and they are constantly running about from one gland 
to another to sip up the honey as it is secreted. But this is not all ; there is a still 
more wonderful provision of solid food. At the end of each of the small divisions of 
the compound leaflet there is, when the leaf first unfolds, a little yellow fruit-like 
body united by a point at its base to the end of the pinnule. Examined through a 
microscope, this little appendage looks like a golden pear. When the leaf first unfolds, 
the little pears are not quite ripe, and the ants are continually employed going from 
one to another examining them. When an ant finds one sufficiently advanced, it bites 
the small point of attachment ; then, bending down the fruit-like body, it breaks it 
off and bears it away in triumph to the nest. All the fruit-like bodies do not ripen at 
once, but successively, so that the ants are kept about the young leaf for some time 
after it unfolds. Thus the young leaf is always guarded by the ants, and no caterpil- 
lar or larger animal could attempt to injure them without being attacked by the little 
warriors. 

* Glover, Agricultural Eeport, 1855, p. — , points out the presence and secretion of 
these glands. 



328 REPORT UPON COTTON INSECTS. 

This Acacia bears large paired thorijs, wbicli, when young, are filled 
with a sweetish i^iilp. Boring' a hole through the wall of one of these 
youug thorns the ants eat out the contents of this one and its mate, this 
action causing an enlargement of the thorn, so that a cai^acious chamber 
is formed, and in this the ants live, remaining constantly on the tree, so 
that Mr. Belt remarks — 

I tbiuk these facts sliow tliat the ants are really kept by the Acacia as a stantling 
army, to i;)rotect its leaves from the attacks of herlnvorons mammals and insects. * * * 
I sowed the seeds of the Acacia in my garden, and reared some yonng plants. Ants of 
many kinds were nnmerous, but none of them took to the thorns for shelter nor the 
glands and fruit-like bodies for food ; for, as I have already mentioned, the species 
that attend on the thorns are not found in the forest. The leaf-cutting ants attacked 
the young plants and defoliated them ; but I have never seen any of the trees out on 
the savannahs that are guarded by the Pneitdomyrma touched by them, and have no 
doubt the Acacia is protected from them by its little warriors. * 

At the base of the petioles in the greater cofiee-weed of the South 
{Cassia occidentalis) are globular glands, which secrete a sufficient quan- 
tity of nectar to render them attractive to numerous ants, wasps, and 
bees, which would be encountered by any wingless insect in ascending 
the stem or passing out on any leaf. Most of the upper leaves subtend- 
ing the racemes of flowers are reduced to mere bracts, which, however, 
have their glands large and active ; and these bear the same relation to 
the flowers and young fruit that those lower down do to the leaves. 

Several species of Sorracenia (i)itcher-plants, or trumpets) have the 
lids or mouths of their pitcher-like leaves j)i"ovided with a sweetish 
secretion which, at certain times, in at least one species {S. variolaris), 
extends along the margin of the wing in front of the leaf so as nearly or 
quite to reach the ground. Thus a line of nectar runs from the ground 
to and within the mouth of the pitcher, which is here provided with a 
fine velvety jjubescence, the hairs pointing downward. Just below this 
is a rough portion, lined with stiff bristles which also point downward. 
The lower part of the tube, destitute of these hairs, is filled by a watery 
liquid, wholly or in great part secreted by the w^alls of the pitcher, and 
usually i)rotected from dilution with rain-water by the overarching lid 
of the pitcher, the real blade of the leaf. An insect, lured up the wing 
and to the mouth of the pitcher, while feeding on the repast so generously 
offered, slips on the velvety surface, tries in vain to catch a firmer hold, 
slips farther, and falls into the pitcher, whence the stiff clicvauxde-frise 
makes his escape very difficult. Reaching the water he is sooner or 
later drowned, and being macerated there contributes to the food of the 
plant.t 

The related Darl'mgtonia californica has a somewhat similarly shaped 
leaf. Its long, twisted tube is arched above, so as to prevent the access 
of rain-water to the secretion which fills its lower part, and the i)art 
answering to the hood of Sarracenia or the blade of an ordinary leaf is 

* The Naturalist in Nicaragua, 1874, p. 219. 

tSee .J. H. Mellichamp's "Notes on San-accnia variolaris," Proc. Am. As. Adv. Sc, 
xxiii, 1874, Nat. Hist., p. 113; also Eiley, iUd., p. 18; and Trans. St. Louis Acad., iii, 235. 



NECTAR AND ITS USES. 



329 



produced iu front of its moutli iu tlie form of a lisli or swallow tail. As 
iu the last case, the edge of the border of the wing, the mouth, and the 
blade or fish-tail appendage are provided with a secretion of nectar, as 
is also the inside of its arched hood ; so that insects are attracted as be- 
fore by the sweets, only to meet their death on entering the tube. The 
nectar leading from the ground appears designed to attract creeping 
insects, such as the ants, which form a large part of the prey of Sarra- 
cenias, while the swallow-tail appendage appears to be for the purpose 
of attracting flying insects.* 

Like the preceding, the climbing Indian pitcher-plants {Nepenthes) 
secrete nectar about the mouths and on the lids of their cups, and for 
the same purpose, for they, too, are insectivorous, and, indeed, more 
truly so than either of the genera previously mentioned, inasmuch as 
their secretion has been shown to be a true digestive fluid, while that 
of the others is scarcely demonstrated as yet to be more than a liquid 
in which maceration may go on. 

When the foregoing examples are considered, it appears at once that 
all nectar may be divided into two classes, according as its relations to 
the secreting plant are direct or indirect, according as it merely relieves 
the plant of a waste or injurious substance, or serves to establish definite 
relations between it and other living beings. Furthermore, the first 
class is entirely excretory, and is produced either by the unmodified leaf 
tissues or by specialized glands ; the second class is never excretory, 
and may be subdivided into two groups — as has been done by Delpino — 
the first aiding in reproduction, and being either intra or extra floral ; 
the second taking no direct part in reproduction, being always extra- 
floral, and serving indirectly either for the protection of some part of 
the plant or for its nutrition by attracting animals which, in the one 
instance, serve as a body-guard to the tender foliage and flowers, and 
in the other are killed, their remains undergoing decomposition or even 
digestion in the leaf cavities of the plant, and serving in either case as 
food for it. This arrangement may be expressed in tabular form as 
below : 

From tlie surface. 
From "lands. 



Directly useful ..., Excretory. 



C Fi 



Indirectly useful.. ) 



( Borne on Sepals. 
Corne on Petals. 

C Floral : < Borne on Stamens. 

I Borne on Pistils. 

' Reproductive J^ t Borne on Receptacle. 

j f Borne on Calyx. 

lExtrafloral { Borne on Bracts. 

( Borne on Involucre, 
r To flowers. 

f Protective < To fruit. 

I Non-reproductive .{ LTo foliage. 

l^ Nutritive By securing material for 

absorption by leaves. 



* See Canby, Proc. Am. As. Adv. Sc, xxiii, 1874, Nat. Hist., ]). 64. 



330 EEPORT UPON COTTON INSECTS. 

In order that the significance of some of tlie examples given may be 
fully understood it will be necessary to speak briefly of the habits of a 
few insects. Ants, the most numerous of all the visitors of extrafloral 
nectar glands, are of various habits. So far as I know all of the species 
with which I had to do in Alabama are omnivorous, eating nectar and 
other sweet substances, but largely feeding npon animal food. In pleasant 
w^eather they may be found abroad night and day. But this is not true 
of all ants. The leaf-cutting and umbrella ants, or Saiiba of Central and 
South America {Occodoma), are entirely herbivorous. Excavating large 
tunnels, and living in immense communities, they are the terror of gar- 
deners in the hotter parts of our continent; for they have the habit of 
marching in great armies which swarm over and defoliate every unpro- 
tected plant, preferring cultivated ])lants, since they, as a rule, neither 
possess properties rendering them unpleasant to the taste of the ants, 
nor special provisions to secure a body-guard of protecting insects, and 
one or the other of these means of defense is usually found in native 
l^lants. Having reached the leaves or petals each ant snips out as large 
a piece as he can carrj- and makes off with it to the nest. In damp, 
Avarm weather these ants forage at all hours, but when the air is hot and 
dry they seem to realize tiiat the leaves would dry up and become use- 
less before they could get them to the nest, and so they hunt only dur- 
ing the cooler hours of the day and at niglit.* Moggridge found that a 
graminivorous ant of the south of France {Pheidole megacephahi) Avorks 
mostly at night,t while McCook finds that the parasol-ants of Texas 
forage only at niglit, visiting, then, the tops of the highest trees in their 
leaf-collecting labor.| So great a pest are these ants in Central America 
that it is found impossible, except by the most strenuous exertions, to 
cultivate any but native plants. 

From this it appears that any plant not protected by an unpleasant 
principle in its flowers and foliage is very liable to extinction where 
these ants abound, unless it can secure a body-guard of some kind, and 
this usually consists of nectar-loving ants. To give perfect protection 
this force must reside constantly on the plant, finding their food, drink, 
and lodging, which, it will be remembered, were all found on the Acacia 
l)reviously mentioned. A less perfect protection would be afforded by 
ants attracted to the plant for some of their food, but residing else- 
where ; but it is probable that so few of them would be on the plant at 
any given moment that an army of the leaf-cutters would have no diffi- 
culty in overrunning it in their sudden onslaught. Let us suppose a 
case in which the attacking ants travel in small bands and only by 
night ; then, evidently, a good iirotection would be afforded by a smaU 
number of pugnacious, nectar-loving ants, called to the plant chiefly or 



* See, on these ants, Bates, Naturalist on tlio Amazons, and Belt, Naturalist in Nica- 
ragua. 

t Ann. Nat. Hist., series — , xiv, 1874, p. 92. 

t Quoted by Bettany, Nature, Oct. 1(5, 1879, p. 583. 



NECTAR AND ITS USES. dJl' 

solely at uight. In this case the plant would be under the necessity of 
secreting nectar only during the night. 

As I have stated before, the extrafloral nectar of the cotton plant is 
far more abundant during the night and in the early morning than at 
any other time, and this is true whether we consider the involucral or 
foliar glands. At first, from the visits of ants to glands in which I could 
detect no nectar, and from the fact that when the largest drops of nec- 
tar were seen early in the morning, the leaves were covered with dew; 
I was led, after satisfying myself that these drops were not confluent 
dew-drops, to conclude that a thin film of sacccharine matter covers the 
glands at all times when they are in a h jalthy condition and of sufii- 
cient age, and that this is hygroscopic, absorbing so much watery vapor 
from the damp night air as to present the phenomenon mentioned. But 
I was led to doubt this conclusion by noticing that the secretion of the 
involucral glands lasts only during the blooming period of the flower 
about which they are placed, and I could see no reason why their nectar 
should be hygroscopic for so brief a time. This led me to examine 
glands in damp weather, before, during, and after a rain ; but no drops 
of nectar were found, though drops of rain-water were occasionally found 
hanging from the border of the glands. So the hygroscopic theory 
would not do. On the contrary, I found that in the early morning after 
a cloudy or rainy day, there was comparatively little nectar in the 
glands, which seems to show that the secretion during the night is the 
result of the solar imiiulse of the preceding day. I could then scarcely 
avoid the conclusion that this nectar was originally developed by nat- 
ural selection, that it might attract some-nectar-loving animal to protect 
the plant from the depredations of some leaf and flower eating creature 
whose visits were chieflj^ made at night ; and such I believe to be the 
case, both attackers and defendeis having been ants in all probability. 

But, it may be urged, you have said that this nectar is, at the pres- 
ent time, an important factor in securing the well-being of the plant, 
since it attracts ants and wasps which are among the most powerful of 
the natural enemies of its great spoliators, the boll-worm and cotton 
caterpillar; why can it not have been developed to secure protection 
against them or some similar insects? The fact that it is protective to 
the plant in this way is undeniable; but from what we know of the 
economy of nature it seems improbable that a nocturnal secretion of 
nectar should have been secured as a means of protection against larvae 
which feed for the most part by* day; while its very abundance at 
night was certain to greatly increase their number on plants where this 
peculiar secretion chanced to be most marked during the process of 
selection, by attracting to those plants a greater number of the moths 
whose ofl'spring the larvae are. 

On the other hand, it may be urged that inasmuch as this nectar is 
now so attractive to the moths of Aletia and HeUothis, it probably does 
more harm to the plant in attracting them where they may lay their 



332 REPORT UPON COTTON INSECTS. 

eggs, tban good in drawing the enemies of their larva); and, this being 
the case, natural selection ought to remove the power of secretion. 
But a moment's reflection will show us that natural selection cannot for 
this reasom remove the glands or their activity. For a long time the 
cotton plant has been subjected to the methodical selection of man, 
who, in selecting seed to sow, pays no attention to the presence or 
absence of active nectar glands on the parent ]dant, but seeks to pro- 
duce prolific plants of vigorous growth and good staple; so that no 
peculiarity which does not tend directly to lessen the vital force of the 
plant, and thus bring itself directly into conflict with the purpose of 
man's selection, can be removed by natural selection. But if, under 
the same circumstances, the production of this nectar is a direct drain 
on the vital force of the plant, a very different result must follow ; for 
the methodical selection of man then becomes a factor in the broader 
selection of nature, and tends to the extinction of those varieties which, 
owing to their greater secretion of nectar, were even a little less vigor- 
ous or less prolific than their fellows which chanced to secrete less, so 
that the result must inevitably be the partial or total absence of nectar 
in the most vigorous and ])rolific varieties. My observation has shown 
me that there is not a whit less nectar secreted by the glands on the 
finest "Dixon-cluster" stalk than by those of the poorest scrub; from 
which I infer that the production of uectar causes very little drain on 
the energy of the plant aside from the mere vital force which must pre- 
side over every physiological act. This, I think, goes to show the 
correctness of Darwin's idea that all nectar was at first merely an 
excretion ; and also that the material used in the elaboration of nectar 
by large, specialized, and active glands which serve other than excretory 
purposes is of such a nature that it can readily be spared by the plant 
without any imi)airment of its vigor.* 

But if the glands of the cotton i)lant seem to have been produced to 
secure the protection of the leaves and flowers of the plant from leaf 
or petal eating insects like ants, those of the cow-pea seem designed to 
I^rotect the flowers and especially the young fruit from all insects, but 
chiefly from such fruit-eating larvae as those of Heliothis. 

While watching Vicia sativa, Darwin found that hive bees, while visit- 
ing the stipular glands, " never even looked at the flowers which were 
open at the same time ; whilst two species of humble-bees neglected the 
stipules and visited only the flowers."t About 10 a. m. one day in August, 
while the sun was shining brightly, T noticed that sever al humble-bees, 

* This, I think, explaius the fact that the glands of Fteris aqwilina still secrete 
■while the frond is young, though they are not needed for its protection against any 
insect, as discovered by Francis Darwin. They were probably developed centuries 
ago, when the young fronds may have experienced the most urgent need of protection 
from some leaf-eating animal, and, causing little drain on the vitality of the plant, 
are still retained, though in some, perhaps all, parts of the world they are no longer 
of use. 

t Cross and Self Fertilization, 1877, p. 403, note. 



NECTAR AND ITS USES. 333 

flying about a mixed thicket of Cassia occklentuUs and G. ohfusi/oUa, 
visited only the flowers of the latter. At the same time many hive bees 
and small wild bees were seen visiting the extrafloral glands of the for- 
mer, but none visited the flowers, nor were any humble-bees seen to 
visit either flowers or petioles of this species. On other occasions I 
saw hive bees, humble-bees, various small bees, wasps, ants, and moths 
at the petiolar glands of C. occidentalis, but not one of these was seen 
in the flowers of this species ; while in the case of C. ohtusifolia, as before 
stated, humble-bees were seen to visit the flowers, but not the extrafloral 
glands, which, appear inactive — at least in Central Alabama. I also 
found that while both the outer and inner involucral glands of the cot- 
ton plant -were visited, when in active secretion, by hive bees, but one 
individual was seen to enter a flower ; and while humble-bees entered 
the flowers constantly, but one was found at each set of involucral glands. 
Humming-birds were often seen about the flowers of cotton, but none 
were ever seen to insert their bills within the corolla, all confining their 
visits to the glands about the flower. Their actions are somewhat 
curious, inasmuch as a given individual visits at any one time only one 
set of these ghuds. Thus on two occasions I watched several whicli 
went only to the outer set ; but on two other occasions several were 
seen to confine their visits exclusively to the inner set. Not having 
marked individuals, I could not, of course, determine whether a given 
bird always limits itself to one set of glands, but I scarcely think that 
this can be the case. 

In brief, then, we see from the examples given that nectar, wherever 
it occurs, may be considered as excretory, reproductive, protective, or 
nutritive ; that in some cases, e. g., the leaves of the peach, excretory 
nectar may possibly be protective also ; that reproductive nectar usually 
occurs in the flowers but not always ; that protective nectar seems 
in some cases designed to keep ants from defoliating and deflouring 
tlie plant; in others, to keep larvae from destroying the foliage or imma- 
ture fruit ; that nutritive nectar may serve in some cases to lead to the 
capture of wingless, in others of winged, insects ; and finally that the 
vital force of a plant is taxed so little in the production of nectar that 
glands once developed and endowed with the power of active secretion 
may continue to secrete for generations after the necessity for their 
secretion has ceased to exist. 

ON THE HOMOLOGY AND ANATOMY OF NECTAR GLANDS. 

Braa^ais, L. Examen organograpliiquo des nectaires. Aunales tics Sciences Natu- 
rellcs, 1842, 2. series, xviii, Bot., 152, 

Broxguiart, a. MiSmoire sur les glaudes nectarif feres cle I'ovairo clans diverses fam- 
ilies de plautes monocotyledoues. Anu. Sc. Nat., 1854, 4. series, ii, Bot., 5. 

Clos, D. De la udcessit(5 do faire dlspairaitre de la nomenclature botanique les mots 
Torns et Nectaire. Ann. Sc. Nat., 1854, 4. series, ii, Bot., 23. 

Martinet, J. Orgaues des s(5cr6tion des v(Sg6taux. Ann. Sc. Nat., 1872, 5. series, 
xiv, Bot., 91. 



334 . EEPORT UPON COTTON INSECTS. 

Eeixke, J. Beitriige zur Auatoniie der an Lanbbliittern, besouclers an flen Ziilincn 
derselben, vorlcommendeu Sckretionsorgaue. Pringsheim's Jalirbiiclier fiir wiss. 
Bot., 1875, X, 119. 

ON THE OCCURRENCE AND USBS OF EXTRAFLORAL NECTAR. 

Belt, Thomas. (1.) The Naturalist in Nioaragua. Loudon, 1874. (2.) Nature, 

xvi, 122. 
Caspary, . De nectariis. Elverfeldae, 1848. 

Darwix, Charles. (1.) On the actions of bees "wlien visiting the stipular glands of 

Vicia sativa. Gardener's Chronicle, 1855,487. (2.) On nectar as an illustration 

of natural selection. Origin of Species, 6th edition, New York, 73. (3.) On 

the secretion of nectar. Cross and Self Fertilization, New York, 1877, 402. 
Darwix, Fraxcis. On nectar-secreting glands. Nature, xvi, 100. 
Delpixo, F. (1.) Ulteriori osservazione. Jillan, 1863-9. (2.) Nottarii estranuziali. 

Bulletino Entomologico, 1874, anno vi. (3.) Ulteriori osservazione. Milan, 1875. 
Fuckel. Flora, 1846, No. 27, according to Reiuke, Jahrb. wiss. Bot., x, 172. 
Gray, Asa. On extrafloral nectar as securing the fertilization of Poinsettia. Silli- 

man's Journal, 1877, 3. series, xiii, 138. 
Haxsteix. Bot. Zeitung, 1868, No. 43, according to Reinke, Jahrb. Aviss. Bot., s, 174. 
KuRR. Untersuchungen Uber die Bedeutung der Nektarieu. 1833. 
Leightox, N. a. On the gland of the phyllodium of Acacia magnifica. Annals of 

Natural History, 18i)5, 3. series, xvi, 12. 
Lubbock, Sir Johx. (1.) British Wild Flowers in relation to Insects. Jjondon, 1875. 

(2.) Scientific Lectures. London, 1879. 
Meehax, T. On the glands of Cassia and Acacia. Proc. Am. As. Adv. Sc, 1869, 

xviii, 2B0. 
Muller, Fritz. On ants attracted to Cecropia by protoplasmic bodies. Nature, 1876, 

xiii, 305. 
POULSEX, V. A. Das extraflorale Nectarium bei Batatas edulis. Bot. Zeitung, 

1877, 780. 
Eeixke. (1.) Gottingen Nachrichten, 1873, 825. (2.) Beitriige zur Anatomic der an 

Laubbliittern, besonders an den Ziihnen derselben, vorkommeiulen Sekretionsor- 

gane. Pringsheim's Jahrbiicher fiir wiss. Botanik, 1875, x, 119. 
Reissek. Bot. Zeitung, 1853, S. 338, according to Ecinke, Jahrb. wiss. Bot., x, 174. 
Eyder, Jxo. a. Bees gathering honey from the Catalpa. American Naturalist, 

1879, xiii, 648. 
Sprexgel, C. K. Das entdeckte Geheimniss der Natur. Berlin, 1793. 
Taylor, J. E. Flowers: Their Origin, Shapes, Pei'fumes, and Colors. Boston, 1878. 
Trelease, Wm. On the fertilization of Poinsettia pulcherriraa. Bulletin of the 

Torrey Botanical Club, 1879, vi, 344. 
UxGER. Flora, 1844, No. 41, according to Eeinke, Jahrb. wiss. Bot., x, 172. 

CONCERNING INSECTIVOROUS PLANTS WHICH ATTRACT THEIR PREY BY 

NECTAR. 

Austin, Mrs. R. M. Leaves of Darliugtonia californica and their two secretions. 
Botanical Gazette, 1878, iii, 91. 

Bartox, . Philos. Mag., xxxix, 107. 

Bartram, Wm. Travels through North and South Carolina, &c. 1791. 
Beal, W. J. Carnivorous Plants. Proc. Am. As. Adv. Sc, 1875, xxiv, 251. 
BURXETT, . Quart. Journ. Sc. and Art., 1829, ii, 290. 



NECTAR AND ITS USES. 335 

Elliott, . Botany of South Carolina aud Georgia, as stated by Dr. Gray. 

Gkav, Asa. (1.) Fly-catching in Sarraceuia. Silliraan's Journal, 187:?, 3. series, vi, 
149, 1G7. m.) On Mellichamp's Observations on Sarracenia. Now York Tribune, 

1873, (f); Gardener's Chronicle, 1874, 818. (2.) Sarraceniasaslly-catchers. Ibid., 

1874, 3. ser., vii, 440. (3.) Sarracenia variolaris. Ibid., 1874, 3. ser., vii, 600. 
(4.) Insectivorous jdants. Darwiniana, New York, 187G, 289; from The Nation, 
Apr. 2 aud 9, 1874. (5.) Insectivorous aud climbing plants. Ibid., 308; from 
The Nation, Jan. G and 13, 1676. (G.) Ou leaves as 8j)ecializcd organs. Structural 
Botany, New York, 1879, 110. 

Hooker, . Address to the department of botany and zoology. Report Brit. 

As. Adv. Sc, 1874, 102. 

Macbride, James. On the power of Sarracenia adunca to entraii insects. Trans. 
Linn. Soc, xii, 1818, 48. 

Melli champ, J. H. Notes on Sarracenia variolaris. Proc. Am. As. Adv. Sc, 1874, 
xxiii, Nat. Hist., 113. 

EiLEY, C. V. (1.) Descriptions and natural history of two insects which brave tho 
dangers of Sarraceuia variolaris. Trans. St. Louis Acad., 1873, iii, 235. (2.) In- 
sectivorous plants. Am. Naturalist, 1874, viii, 684. (3.) Ou the insects more par- 
ticularly associated with Sarracenia vai'iolaris. Proc. Am. As. Adv. Sc, 1874, 
xxiii, Nat. Hist., 18. 

ON FLORAL NECTAR, THE ANIMALS WHICH SEEK IT, AND THE FERTIL- 
IZATION OF FLOWERS IN GENERAL. 

Alefeld, Dr. On the genus Linnm. Bot. Zeitung, 1863, 281. 

Anderson, J. Fertilization of Orchids. Journal of Hortic and Cott. Gard., Apr., 
1863, 287. 

•Arnaud, M. Quelques observations sur le Gladiolus Gueiiini. Bull. Soc. Bot. de 
France, xxiv, 286. 

AsCHERSON. On cleistogamic flowers in Juncus. Bot. Zeitung, 1871, 551. 

Axell, Severin. Om Anordniugarna for de Fanerogama viixternas Befruktuing. 
Stockholm, 1869. 

Barstow, J. W. Yucca. Bull. Torr. Bot. Club, 1872, iii, 37. 

Bailey, W. W. (1.) Bees on Gerardia pedicularia. Bull. Torr. Bot. CI., 1871, ii, 39. 
(2.) Perforation of Gerardia pedicularis by bees. Am. Naturalist, 1873, vii, 689. 
(3.) Apocynum. Bull. Torr. Bot. CI., 1874, v, 9. (4.) Dimorphism [of Bouvardia 
leiantha]. Bull. Torr. Bot. CI., 187G, vi, 106. (5.) Humble-bees and the Gerardia 
flava. Am. Naturalist, 1879, xiii, 649. 

Balsamo, J. E. Artificial hybridization in the genus Gossyiiium. Comptes Rendus 
1837, 763; translated, Ann. Nat. Hist., 1868, i, 155. 

Batalin, a. Cleistogamous flowers in the Caryophyllaceaj. Acta Horti Petropoli- 
taui, 1878, v. 

Bates, H. W. The Naturalist on the River Amazons. London, 1876. 

Beal, W. J. (1.) Agency of insects in fertilizing plants. Am. Naturalist, 1867, i, 254, 
403. (2.) The fertilization of Gentians by hiunble-bees. Am. Naturalist, 1874, 
viii, 180, 226. (3.) Sensitive stigmas as an aid to cross fertilization of flowers. 
Proc. Am. As. Adv. Sc, 1876, xxv; Buftalo Courier, Aug. 25, 1876; Sillimau's 
Journal, 1876, 3. ser., xii, 308. (4.) Insects needed to fertilize Utricularia and 
Pyxidanthera. Am. Naturalist, 1878, xii, 552. (5.) Experiments in cross-breed- 
ing plants of the same variety. Sillimau's Journal, 1879, 3. ser,, xvii, 343, 

Beccari. Ou the fertilization of palms. Revista Botanica, 1S77, 33. 

Belt, Thomas. The Naturalist in Nicaragua. Loudon, 1874. 



336 REPORT UPON COTTON INSECTS. 

Bennett, A. W. (I.) On synacmy and heteracmy. Lond. Journ. Bot., 1870, viii, 316. 
(2.) On Inipatieus fulva. Loud. Liun. Soc. Bot., 1872, xiii, 147. (3.) The fer- 
tilization of the wild pansy. Nature, 1873, viii, 49. (4.) The fertilization of 
Funiariacea?.. Nature, 1874, is, 484. (5.) Extraordinary growth of Vallisneria 
spiralis. Lond. Journ. of Botany, 187o; Pop. Sc. Review, Apr., 1877, 208; Am. 
Naturalist, 1870, x, 110. (6.) How Flowera are Fertilized. 1873. 

Bentham, George. (1.) On Araehis liypogala. Linn. Soc., 1838, (?). (2. ) Additional 
note on Aracliis hypogala. Sillimau's Journal, 1855, 2. ser., xx, 202 ; from Hooker'a 
Journ. of Botany, Nos. 77, 177. (3.) On fertilization in the Proteacete. Journ. 
Linn. Soc. Bot., 1871, xiii, 58, 64. 

Bessey, C. E. Sensitive stamens in Portulaca. Am. Naturalist, 1873, vii, 464. 
BiCKFORD, Robert. Honey-bee killed by silk-weed pollen. Am. Naturalist, 1869, 

ii, 665. 
Bonnier, Gaston. On the fertilization of flowers by insects, and the nature and uses 

of nectar. Bull. Soc. Bot. de France ; abstract, Prairie Farmer, Oct. 25, 1879, 338. 

BouLGER, G. S. Scent and color in flowers. Nature, 1878, xviii, 427. 

Briggs, T. R. Archer. Flowers of the primrose destroyed by birds. Nature, 
1874, ix, 509. 

Britton. Sensitiveness of stamens of Opuntia vulgaris. Bull. Torr. Bot. Club, 1877, 
178. 

Brown, H. G. Charles Darwin iibor die Eim-ichtungen zur Befruchtung britischer 
nnd ausliindischer Orchideen. With an appendix by the translator on Stanhopea 
devoniensis. Stuttgart, 1862. 

Brown, Robert. On the organs. and mode of fecundation in Orchideae and Ascle- 
piadeiB. Linn. Trans., 1833, xvi, 704. 

BuNDY, W. F. Flowers of the golden currant perforated by humble-bees. Am. 
Naturalist, 1876, x, 238. 

Buxton, A. F. Flowers of the primrose destroyed by birds. Nature, 1874, x, 7. 

Caspary. De nectariis. Bonne, 1848. 

Chambers, F. Wasps as marriage-priests to plants. Am. Naturalist, 1867, i, 105. 

Cheeseman, T. F. (1.) On the fertilization of the New Zealand species of Pteros. 
tylis. Trans. New Zealand Institute, 1873, v, 352. (2.) On the fertilization of 
Acianthus cyrtostilis. Trans. New Zealand Inst., 1874, vii, 349. (3.) Fertiliza- 
tion of Glossostigma elatiuoides. Nature, xvii, 163. 

Claraud, a. Sur le A'dritable mode de f(<condation du Zostera marina. Actes de la 
Soc. Linn, de Bordeaux, 1878, 4. ser., ii ; abstract in Bot. Zeitung, 1879, No. 33,535 

Comber, F. The fertilization of Fumariacea3. Nature, 1874, ix, 484. 

Courtis, W. M. Dichogamy in Epilobinm angustifolium. Am. Naturalist, 1876, x, 43. 

Cruger. a few notes on the fecimdation of Orchids, and their morphology. Journ. 
Liun. Soc. Bot., 1864, viii, 162. 

Darwin, Francis. Bees visiting flowers. Nature, 1874, ix, 189. 

Darwin, Charles. (1.) On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection. 
London and New York. (2.) The Variation of Animals and Plants under Domesti- 
cation. London and New York. (3.) On the Various Contrivances by which 
Orchids are Fertilized by Insects. London and New York. (4.) On the Effects of 
Cross and Self Fertilization in the Vegetable Kingdom. London and New York. 
(5.) The Different Forms of Flowers on Plants of the Same Species. London and 
New York. [Essays tirst published in the Journ. Linn. Soc] (6.) On the agency 
of bees in the fertilization of paj)ilionaceous flowers, and on the crossing of kid- 
ney-beans. Ann. Nat. Hist., 1858, 3. ser., ii, 459. (7.) Fertilization of Vincas. 
Gardener's Chronicle, 1861, 552. (8.) Observations sur I'h^t^romorphismo des 
fleurs, et ses consequences pour la fecondation. Ann. Sc. Nat., 1863, 4. ser., xix, 
Bot., 204. (9.) Notes on the fertilization of Orchids. Aun. Mag. Nat. Hist., Sept., 



NECTAE AND ITS USES. 337 

Darwin, Charles— Continned. 

1869. (10.) Fertilization of tlieFuinariacese. Nature, 1874, ix, 4C0. (11.) Flo-w- 
ers of the primrose destroyed by bii'ds. Nature, 1874, ix, 482; x, 24. (12.) Ou 
flowers and insects. Nature, 1877, xvii, 78. 

De Camdolle. Organographie v6g(Stale. Paris, 1827. 

Delpino, F. (1.) Eelazione sull'apparecchio della fecondazine nelle asclepiadee, etc. 
Torino, 1865. (2. ) On tlie fertiUzation of Cannas. Bot. Zeitung, 1867, 277 ; Scien- 
tific Oi)inion, 1870, 135; noticed in Am. Naturalist, 1870, 242. (3.) Sugli apparec- 
clii della fecondazione nelle piante autocarpee. Florence, 1867. (4.) Snll'opera la 
distribuzione dei sessi nelle j)iante del Prof. F. Hildebrand; note critiche. Milan, 
1867. (5.) Sulla Darwiniana teoria della pangenesi. Torino, 1863. (6.) Ulteriori 
osservazioue sulla dicogamia nel regno vegetale. Milan, Parte 1, 1868-'9 ; Parte II, 
Fas. I, 1870; Fas. II, 1875. (7.) Pensieri sulla biologia vegetale. Pisa, 1867. (8.) 
Breve cenno sulle relazione biologiclie e genealogiclie delle Marantacee. Nuovo 
Giom. Bot. Ital., 1869, i, No. 4. (9.) Altri aijpareccM dicogamici recentemente 
osservati. Ibid. (10.) Alcuni appunti di geografia botanica a proiiosito delle ta- 
belle fitogeogi-apMche del Prof. Holfmaun. Bolletino della Soc. Geogr. Ital., 1869, 
Fas. III. (11.) Applicazione della teoria Darwiniana ai fieri ed agli insetti visita- 
tori dei fiore. Discorso pronunciato dal Dr. Erm. Miiller, di Lippstadt. Versione 
dal tedesco e annotazioni. Boll. Soc. Ent. Ital., 1870, ii. Fas. III. (12.) Sulle pi- 
ante a biccMeri. Nuovo Giom. Bot. Ital., 1871, iii. (13.) Stella dicogamia vege- 
tale 6 specialmente su quella dei CereaU. Boll, del Comizio Agr. Parm., 1871. 
(14.) Studi sopra un lignaggio anemofilo delle Composte ossia sopra il gruppo delle 
Artemisiacee. Florence, 1871. (15. ) The relative fertility of cross-fertilization and 
self-fertilization. Bennett, in Am. Naturalist, 1876, x, 744. (16.) Insert! polari, 
pronubi di fiore. Rivista Botanica, 1877, 13. 

Dickie, . On the fertilization of Cannas. Joum. Linn. Soc, x, 55. 

DoBBS. Phil. Trans., xlvi, 536. 

Dyer, W. T. Thistleton. (1.) Heterogomy of Cratoxylon formosum. London Jonm. 
of Botany, 1872, i, 26. (2.) Flowers of the primrose destroyed by birds. Nature, 
1874, ix, 509. (3.) The fertilization of FumariaceiB. Nature, 1874, x, 5. 

Eaton, Rev. I. A. Natural history of Kerguelen's Island. Nature, 1875, xii, 35. 

Engelmann, Geo. (1.) The flower of Yucca and its fertilization. Bull. Torr. Bot. 
Club, 1872, iii, 33. (2.) Note from Dr. Engelmann. Ibid., 37. (3.) See also hiS' 
monograph of the Yuccas. Trans. St. Louis Acad., iii. 

Engler, a. (1.) On proterandrous and iiroterogynous species of Saxifraga. Bot. Zei- 
tung, 1868, 833. (2.) Notiz iiberdie Befruchtung von Zostera marina, nnd das 
Wachsthum derselben. Bot. Zeitung, 1879, No. 41, 654. 

Errera, L:fio. Function of the sterile filament of Penstemon. Silliman's Journal-, 
1879, 3. ser., xvii, 411; from Bull. Soc. Roy. Bot. de Belgique, 1879, xvii (with 140 
pages on the structure and fecundation of flowers in general). 

Evans, M. S. Notes on some Natal plants. Nature, 1878, xviii, 543. 

Everett, A. H. Fertilization of flowers by birds. Nature, xvi, 476. 

Faivre. On the fertilization of Cannas. .Variability des Esp^ces, 1868, 158. 

Farrer, T. H. (1.) On the manner of fertilization of the scarlet runner and blue 
Lobelia. Ann. Nat. Hist., 1868, 4. ser., ii, 225. (2.) On the fertilization of a few 
common papilionaceous flowers. Nature, 1872, vi, 478, 498. (3.) Fertilization of 
papilionaceous flowers— Coronilla. Nature, 1874, x, 169. 

Festing, E. R. Flowers of the primrose destroyed by birds. Nature, 1874, x, 6. 

Fitzgerald, R. D. Australian Orchids. Sydney, New South Wales, Part I, 1875, 
Part II, 1876. 

Forbes, H. O. The fertilization of Orchids. Nature, xvi, 102. 

Freeden, W. von. Yellow crocuses. Nature, 1877, xvi, 43. ' 

Freyhold, E. von. Ueber Bestaubuug und das auftreteu mehrerrer Aythereu bei 
Limodorum abortionur. Verhandl. Bot. Vereins Prov. Brandeuberg, 1877. 
22 I 



338 REPORT UPON COTTON INSECTS. 

Gentry, Thomas. (1. ) Fertilization of Pedicularis canadensis. Ann. Nat. Hist., 1873, 
4. ser., xii, 497; from Proc. Acad. Nat. Sc. Phila., June, 1873. (2.) The fertili- 
zation of certain flowers tlirough insect agency. Am. Naturalist, 187.'>, is, 263. 

Gladstone, J. H. Flowers of tlie primrose destroyed by birds. Nature, 1874, 
ix, 509. 

GossE, P. H. Microscopic observations on some seeds of Orchids. Joum. of Hortic. 
and Cottage Gardener, 1863, 287. 

Gray, Asa. (1. ) Enumeration of plants of the Rocky Mountains. Silliman's Journal, 
1862, 2. ser. , xxxiv, 33. (2. ) Review of Darwin's work on Orchids, with observa- 
tions on Platan thera Hookeri. Ibid., 143(?). (3.) Dimorphism in the genitalia of 
flowers. Silliman's Journal, 1862, 2. ser., xxxiv, 419. (4.) Fertilization of Orchids 
through the agency of insects. Ibid., 420. (5.) On Platanthera flava and Gymna- 
denia tridentata. Silliman's Journal, 1863,2. ser., xxxvi, 292. (6.) On dimorphic 
species of Leucosomia and Drymispermura. Seeman's Journal of Botany, 1865, 
iii,305. (7.) Dioico-dimorphism in the primrose family. Silliman's Journal, 1865, 

2. ser.,xxxix, 101. (8.) Observations on dimorphous flowers. Ibid., 101. (9.) In- 
sects and plant fertilization. Am. Agriculturist, 1866, xxv, 186, 257, 290, 324, 362, 
400,437. (10.) Notice of Hildebrand on the necessity of insect agency in the 
fertilization of Corj'dalis cava. Silliman's Journal, 1866, 2. ser., xlii, 131. (11.) On 
dimoq)hic i)lants. Proc. Am. Acad. Arts and Sc, June 14, 1870. (12.) Arrangement 
for cross-fertilization of the flowers of Scrophularia nodosa. Silliman's Journal, 
1871, 3. ser., ii, 150. (13.) Delpino on the fertilization of Coniferaj and on the gene- 
alogy of the Artemisiaceous tribe of Composita?, as deduced from their mode of fer- 
tilization. Silliman's Journal, 1872, 3. ser., iii, 379. (14.) Dimorphism in Forsythia. 
Am. Naturalist, 1873, vii, 422. (15.) How flowers are fertilized. Am. Agricultur- 
ist, 1876-'7,xxxv, 22, 62, 142, 182,222,262,303,382; xxxvi, 22, 62, 102, 182. (16.) Het- 
eromorphism in Epigsa. Am. Naturalist, 1876, x, 490 ; Silliman's Journal, 1876, 3. 
ser., xii, 74. (17.) Subradical solitary flowers in Scirpus. Silliman's Journal, 1876, 

3. ser., xii, 467. (18.) Fertilization of Gentiana Andrewsii. Am. Naturalist, 1877, 
xi, 113. (19.) Gentiana Andrewsii. Bull. Torr. Bot. Club., 1877, vi,179. (20.) 
Homogone and heterogoue (or homogonous and heterogonous) flowers. Silliman's 
Journal, 1877, 3. ser., xiii, 82 ; Am. Naturalist, 1877, xi, 42. (21.) Notice of Darwin 
on the efl'ects of cross and self fertilization in the vegetable kingdom. Silliman's 
Journal, 1877, 3. ser., xiii, 125. (22. ) Cleistogaray in Impatiens. Silliman's Journal, 
1877, xiv, 497. (23. ) How Plants Behave. New York, —. (24.) Botanical Text 
Book (Part I, Structural Botany). New York, 1879, 215. (25.) The pertinacity 
and predominance of weeds. Silliman's Journal, 1879,3. ser.,xviii, 161. 

Greene, A. C. Apocynum and rosaemifolium. Bull. Torr. Bot. Club, 1875, iv, 12. 

Greenleaf, R. W. Fertilization of Posoqueria longifoUa. Proc. Bost. Soc. Nat. Hist., 
1876, xvii, 354. 

H., A. Yellow crocuses. Nature, 1877, xvi, 84. 

H., H. Fertilization of Salix repene. Nature, xvi, 184. 

Hankenson, E. L. Dimorphism in Claytonia. Am. Naturalist, 1876, x, 44. 

Hart, W. E. (1.) Ground ivy. Nature, 1873, viii, 162. (2.) Fertilization of Cory- 
dalis claviculata. Nature, 1874, x, 5. (3.) Flowers of the primrose destroyed by 
birds. Ibid., 1, 

Henschel. Von der Sexualitilt. Breslau, 1820. 

Henslow, Rev. Geo. (1.) Fertilization of Medicago. Joum. Linn. Soc, 1866, 328. 
(2.) On the self-fertilization of plants. Trans. Linn. Soc, 1879, 2. ser., i, Bot., 318; 
noticed and criticized by Dr. Gray, Silliman's Journal, 1879, 3. ser., xvii, 489. 
(3.) The self-fertilization of plants. Pop. Sc. Review, Jan., 1879. 

Hildebrand, F. (1.) Experimente zum Dimorphismus von Linum perenne und Pri- 
mula sinensis. Bot. Zeitung, 1864. (2.) Experimente zur Dichogamie und zum Di- 
morphismus. Bot. Zeitung, 1865. (3. ) Ueber ilie Befruchtung der Salviaarten mit 
Hlilfe von Insekten. Priiagsheim's Jahrbiicher fiir wiss. Bot., 1865, iv, 451. (4.) 



NECTAR AND ITS USES. 339 

HiLDEBRAND, F. — Coiitiuued. 

Ueber die Befruchtung vou Aristolochia clematitis und einiger anderer Aristo- 
lochiaartcu. Jalirb. wiss. Bot., 1866, v, 343. (5.) Ueber die Vorriclitimgen an 
eiuigeu Bliitlieu zur Beli-uclitimg diirch lusekteuliiilfo. Bot. Zeitiiug, 1866, No. 
10. (6.) Ueber die Nothweudigkeit der lusekteuliiilfe bei der Befruchtung vou 
Corydalis cava. Jahrb. wins. Bot., 1866, v. (7.) Ueber die Bcfruclitimg von 
Asclcpiaa coruuti. Bot. Zeituug, 1866, No. 48. (8.) Ueber den Trimorpbisnuis in 
der Gattung Oxalis. Mouatsberichie der Acad, der Wissenscli. zu Berlin, 1860. 
(9.) Die GescMechterVertlieiluugbeidenPflanzen. Leipzig, 1867. (10.) Frede- 
rigo Delpino's Beobachtungen Uber die Bestaubungsvomchtuugen bei den Phane- 
rogaraen. Bot. Zeitung, 1867, No. 34, 265. (11.) Notizen liber die Geschlechtsver- 
hiiltuisse brasilianisclier Plianzcu, aus einem Briefe von Fritz Miiller. Bot. Zei- 
tung, 1868, No. 8, 113. (12. ) Ueber die Gescblechtsverbultnissc bei den Compositen. 
Verbandl. der Leop. Carol. Ac, 1869. (13.) Weitcre Beobachtungen iiber die Be- 
stiiubungsverhaltnisse an Bluthen. Bot. Zeitung, 1869, Nos. 29, 31. (14.) Ueber 
die BestUubungsvorrichtungen bei den Fumariaceen. Jabrb. wiss. Bot., 18QU, vii; 
noticed, Am. Naturalist, 1871, 117. (15.) Delpino's weitere Beobachtungen. Mit 
Zusiitzen und Illustrationen. Bot. Zeitung, 1870, Nos. 37, 42. (16.) Experimente 
und Beobachtungen an trimorpheu Oxalisarten. Bot. Zeitung, 1871. (17.) On 
the fertilization of grasses. Mouatsberichte der Akad., Berlin, 1872, 743. 

Hooker and Thomson. On cleistogamic flowers. Journ. Linn. Soc, 1857, ii, 7. 

Hubbard, H. G. Cross-fertilization of Aristolochia. Am. Naturalist, 1877, xi, 303. 

Hunt, J. G, Seusitive organs in the flowers of Asclepiads. Acad. Nat. Sc. Phila., 
Aug. 27, 1878; abstract in Pop. Sc. Review, Jan., 1879,89, and Bull. Torr. Bot. 
Club, 1878, vi, 280. 

Journal of Horticulture and Cottage Gardener. On Orchid cultivation, cross- 
breeding, and hybridizing. 1863, 206. 

Kerner, a. (1.) Die Schutzmittel des Pollens. Innspruck, 1873. See, also, abstract 
in Bibliotheque Universelle, 1873, xlvii, 302; translated iu Ann. Nat. Hist., 1873, 
4. ser., xii, 431. (2.) Schutzmittel der Bliithen gigeu nubcrnfene Giiste. Vienna, 
1876. Reviewed in Natin-e, 1877, XV, 237. Translated into English: Flowers and 
their Unbidden Guests. London, 1878. Translation reviewed in Nature, 1879, xix, 
214. 

Key, Rev. H. C. Flowers of the primrose destroyed by birds. Nature, 1874, ix, 509. 

KiRBY and Spence. Introduction to Eutomology. London, 7th edition, 1856, 168. 

Kirk. On cleistogamic flowers of Monochoria vaginalis. Journ. Linn. Soc. , 1864, viii, 
147. 

Kirkpatrick, J. Honey-bees killed by pollen. Am. Naturalist, 1870, iii, 109. 

Kitchener, F. E. (1.) Fertilization of the pansy; ground ivy. Nature, 1873, viii, 
143. (2.) On cross-fertilization as aided by sensitive motion in Musk and Achi- 
menes. Trimen's Journ. of Botany ; copied in Am. Naturalist, 1873, vii, 478. 

Knight, Andrew. . Philosoph. Trans., 1799. 

K5BKENTER. (1.) Vorliiufigen Nachricht von einigen das Geschlecht der Pflanzen 
betreffeuden Vorsuchen und Beobachtungen. Leipzig, 1761. (2.) Fortsetzung 
der VorlUiifigen Nachricht. Leipzig, 1763. (3.) Ann. Bot., ii, 9. 

KunN. On cleistogamic flowers in Vandellia. Bot. Zeitung, 1867, sxv, 65. 

KuNZE, Otto. Die Schutzmittel der Pflanzen gegen Thicre und Wetterungunst. 
Leipzig, 1877. 

KURR. Untersuchungen iiber die Bedeutuug der Nektarien. 1833. 

Leggett, W. H. (1.) Aristolochia serpentaria. Bull. Torr. Bot. Club, 1870, i, 3. 
(2.) Iloney-bee killed by Asclepias pollen. Am. Naturalist, 1870, iii, .3>8. (3.) 
Bees puncturing flowers. Bull. Torr. Bot. Clul>, 1872, iii, 33. (4.) Fertilization 
of Asclepias. Ibid., 34. (5.) Apocynum, No. 1. Ibid., 46. (G.) Apocynum, No 



340 REPORT UPON COTTON -INSECTS. 

Leggett, W. H. — Conthmcd. 

2. Ibid., 49. (7.) Apocynum, No. 3. Ibid., 53. (8.) Apocynnm, No. 4. Bull. 
Torr. Bot. Clnb, 1873, iv, 1. (9.) Apocynum, No. 5. Ibid., 23. (10.) Pontederia 
cofdata. Bull. Torr. Bot. Club, 1875, vi, G2, 170. (11.) Cassia. Ibid., 171. 

LocHE, M. A. Note sur un fact anomal de fructification cliez. quelques Balsamin^es. 
Bull. Soc. Bot. de France, 1876, xxiii, 367. 

Lubbock, Sir John. (1.) On British Wild Flowers Considered in Relation to Insects. 
London, 1875. (2.) Scientific Lectures. London, 1879. Lecture I: On tlowers 
and insects. 

LuDWiG, F. Ueber die Kleistogamie von Collomia grandiflora. Bot. Zeitung, 1877, 
777. 

M., C. A. Bullfinches and primroses. Nature, xiii, 427. 

Marias and Pla>'CHON. On the flowering and frnctification of the vine. Ann. Nat. 
Hist., 1867, 3. ser., xix, 220. 

Martinet, J. Organes de sdcrdtion des v6g6aux (Chap. V : Glandes Florales). Ann. 
des Sciences Naturelles, 1872, 5. ser., xiv, Bot., 209. 

Martixdale, I. C. Cleistogamous flowers of Danthonia. Am. Naturalist, 1878, xii, 
388. 

Meehan, Thomas (1.) On dioicism in Epigala repens. Proc. Acad. Nat. Sc. Phila., 
May, 1868, 153. (2.) On dioecious forms of Mitchella. Ibid., July 28, 1868, 183. 
(3.) On the fertilization of Petunias by nocturnal lepidoptera. Proc. Acad. Nat. 
Sc. Phila., Aug. 2, 1870, 90. (4.) On objections to Darwin's theory of fertilization 
through insect agency. Proc. Am. As. Adv. Sc, 1870, xix. 280. (5.) Dimorph- 
ism in Dentzia. Am. Naturalist, 1871, v, 161. (6.) Contrivance in the corolla 
of Salvia involncrata. Ibid., 161. (7.) On the lever-like anthers in Salvia. Ibid., 
782. (8.) Cross- fei-tilization and the laws of sex in Euphorbia. Ann. Nat. Hist., 

1871, 4. ser., vi, 191. (9.) On the flowers of Aralia spinosa and Hedera helix. 
Ann. Nat. Hist., 1871, 4. ser., \ii, 315. (10.) Fertilization of Pedicularis cana- 
densis. Proc. Acad. Nat. Sc. Phila., June; 1873; Ann. Nat. Hist., 1873, 4. ser, xii, 
497. (11.) Fertilization of the Yucca. Btill. Torr. Botan. Club, 1873, iv, 63. 
(12.) On movement in the stigmatic lobes of Catalpa. Proc. Am. As. Adv. Sc, 

1873, xxii, 72. (13.) Are insects any material aid to plants in fertilization? 
Proc. Am. As. Adv. Sc, 1875, xxiv, 243; criticised in Silliman's Journal, 1876, 3. 
ser., xii, 397. (14.) On self- fertilizing flowers. Proc Acad. Nat. Sc. Phila., May 
16, 1876, 84. (15.) On self-fertilization and cross-fertilization in flowers. Proc. 
Am, As. Adv. Sc, 1876, xxv, 253. (16.) Gentiana Andrewsii. Bull. Torr. Bot. 
Club, 1877, vi, 189. (17.) Varying experiences. Nature, 1878, xviii, 334. 

Micheli. On some recent researches in vegetable physiology. Ann. Nat. Hist., 

1872, ix, 233 ; translated from Bibliotheque Universelle. 

Mikan. Eine von Dott ; Gussone auf europaischeu Bodcn entdeckte Stapelia. 1834. 

MoGGRiDGE, J. T. (1.) Observations on some Orchids of the south of France. 
Journ. Linn. Soc, 1865, viii, 256. (2.) On Ophrys. Flora of Mentone, 1867, (?), 
Plates 43-45. (3.") Ueber Ophrys insectifera. Verhandlungen der Kais. Leop. 
Carol. Akad., 1869, xxxv. (4.) Fertilization of the FumariacejB. Nature, 1874, 

1874, ix, 423 : x, 5. 

MoiiL, H. vox. (1.) On cleistogamic flowers. Bot. Zeitung, 1863, xxi, 309, (2.) 
Einige Beobachtungen iiber dimorphe Bliithen. Bot, Zeitung, Oct,, 1863 ; trans- 
lated in Ann, Sc. Nat., Bot., Apr. 1864. 

MooRE, S. (1.) The fertilization of Fumariacea}. Nature, 1874, ix, 484. (2.) Bud 
fertilization in Orchids. Journal of Botany, Feb., 1877,57, 

MoRREX, Ed. On Anchusa sanfervirens. La Belgiqne Horticole, 1877, xxvii, 12. 

MtJLLER, D. On cleistogamic flowers. Bot. Zeitung, 1857, xvi, 730. 



NECTAR AND ITS USES. 341 

MttLLER, Fritz. (1.) Ueber die Befruchtiing dor Martlia (Posoqueria) fragrans. 
Bot. Zeituug, 186G, 129. (2.) Notizen iiber die Gesclileclitsverbiiltuesse 
brasilianiscber Pflanzen. Bot. Zeitung, 1368, 11'3. (3.) Befrucbtuugsvcrsucbe 
an Cip6 albo (Bignouia). Ibid., 625. (4.) Ueber BefrachtungseBscbeiuungen 
bei Orcbideen. Ibid., 629. (5.) On Faramaia. Bot. Zeitnng, 1869, 603. (6.) 
Umwaudlung von Staubgelassen in Stempel bei Begonia ; Ucbergang von Zwit- 
terbliitbigkeit in Getrenntbliitbigkeit bei Cbamissoa; Triandriscbe Varietiit 
eines monandriscben Epidendrum. Bot. Zeitung, 1S70, 149. (7.) Ueber deu 
Trimorpbismus der Pontedcrien. Jenaiscbe Zeitscbrift, vi. Heft I. (8.) On fer- 
tilization of Abutilon hybrids. Jenaiscbe Zeitscbr. , 1872, 22 ; 1873, 441. (9. ) Inves- 
tigations respecting tbe fertilization of Abutilon. Am. Naturalist, 1674, viii, 223. 
(10.) On flowers and insects. Nature, 1876, xiii, 305. (11.) Ueber Ilaarpinsel, 
Filzflecke, uud iibnlicbe Gcbilde auf den Fliigeln miiunlicher Scbmetterlinge. 
Jen. Zeitscbr., Bd. XI, N. F. IV, i. 99-114. (12.) Die Duftscbuppender miinnlicben 
Maracujafalter. Kosmos, i. Heft V, 391. (13.) Die Duftscbui)iien des Mlinncbens 
von Dione Vanillse. Ibid., Heft VII, 38. (14.) Uo bat der Moscbusduft seinen 
Sitz ? Kosmos, ii. Heft I, 84. (15.) Blumender Luft. Ibid., Heft II, 187. (16.) 
In Blumen gefangene Scbwiirmer. Ibid., 178. 

MtJLLER, Hermank. (1.) Beobacbtungen an westfiiliscben Orcbideen. Verbaud- 
lungen des nat. Vereins fiir pr. Eheinl. und Westf. , 1868-'69. (2.) Application of 
tbe Darwinian theory to flowers and tbe insects which visit them. English 
translation from the Italian translation of Delpiuo. Am. Naturalist, 1871, v, 271. 
(3.) Befrucbtung der Blumen durch Insekten, und die gegenseitigen Anpassungen 
beider. Leii)zig, 1873 ; reviewed in Am. Naturalist, 1873, vii, 680, from Bennett, 
in Tbe Academy. (4.) The fertilization of flowers by insects. Nature, 1873-'77, 
viii, 186, 205, 433 ; ix, 44, 164 ; s, 129 ; xi, 32, 110, 169 ; xii, 50, 190 ; xiii, 210, 239 ; 
XV, 317, 473. (5.) Fertilization of tbe Fumariaceaj. Nature, 1874, ix, 460; x, 5. 
(6.) Ground ivy. Nature, 1873, viii, 161. (7.) Alpine flowers. Nature, 1378, 
xviii, 519. (8.) Ueber den Ursprung der Blumen. Kosmos, i, 100-114; ii, 395. 
(9.) Das Variiren der Grosse gefiirbter BlUtbenhlillen und seine Wirkung auf die 
Natui-ziicbtnug der Blumen. Kosmos, ii, 11-25, 123-139. (10.) Wie hat die 
Honigbiene ibre geistige Befiibigung erlangt ? Eichstiidter Bieuenzeitung, 1875, 
Nos. 12, 13, and 14 ; 1876, Nos. 2, 10, 11, and 14. (11.) Anwendung der Darwin'- 
schen Lebre auf Bienen. Verhandl. naturb. Vereins, jir. Rbeinl. uud Westf., 
1872. (12.) Die Insekten als uubewusste Blumenziicbter. Kosmos, iii. Heft IV- 
VI; abstract in Am. Naturalist, 1879, xiii, 257. (13.) Die Wechselbeziehungeu 
zwischen den Blumen luid den ibre Kreuzung vermittelnden Insekten. Scheuk's 
Handbucb der Botanik, 1-112; abstract in Am. Naturalist, 1379, xiii, 451. (14.) 
Bombus mastrucatus, ein Dysteleolog unter den ali^inen Blumenbesucbevu. Kos- 
mos, iii, Heft VI. (15.) Weitere Beobacbtungen iiber Befrucbtung der Blumen 
durch Insekten. Verhandlung des nat. Vereins der ]}t. Rbeinl. und Westf., 1879, 
XXXV, 4; Folge, v, Bd. (16.) On Primula farinosa. Sitzungsbericbten des bot. 
Vereins der Prov. Brandenburg, Nov. 29, 1878. 

Nageli. On odors and colors attractive to insects. Entstehung der Nat. Hist. Arteu, 
1865, 23. 

Neisler, Hug^ M. Observations on the fructification of the Arachis bypogte. 
Silliman's Journal, 1855, 2. ser.,xix,212. 

Newton. Flowers of the primrose destroyed by birds. Nature, 1374, x, 6, 

Ogle. (1.) The fertilization of Salvia and of some other flowers. Pop. Sc. Review, 
July, 1869,261. (2.) The fertilization of certain plants (Didynamia). Pop, Sc. 
Review, Jan., 1870, 45. (3.) The fertilization of various flowers by insects (Com- 
positse, Ericaceae, «S:c.). Pop. Sc. Review, Apr., 1870, 160. 

Oliver. On cleistogamous flowers. Nat. Hist. Review, 1862, 238. 



342 REPORT UPON COTTON INSECTS. 

Plaxchon. On dimorpliic species of Liuum. London Joiirn. of Botany, 1848, vii, 

174. 
PoissoN, M. J. Sur deux nouvelles plantes-pi^ges. Bull. Soc. Bot. de France, xxiv, 

23. 

Potts, Edward. Sensitive organs in the flowers of Asclepiads. Acad. Nat. Sc. 

Phila., Aug. 27, 1878 ; abstract in Pop. Sc. Review, Jan., 1879, 89. 
Pkixgle, C. G. Cleistogamons flowers in Dantlionia. Am. Naturalist, 1878, xii,248; 

Nature, 1878, xviii, 253 ; Silliman's Journal, Jan., 1878, 71. 
Redfield, John H. Fertilization of Asarum canadcuse. Bull. Torr. Bot. Club, 1873, 

iv, 21. 
Reichenbach, H. G. Bud-fertilization in Orchids. Journal of Botany, Mar. , 1877, 85. 

,RiLEY, C. V. (1. ) On the oviposition of the Yucca moth. Am. Naturalist, 1873, vii, 619. 
(2. ) On a new genus in the lepidopterus family Tineidae, with remarks on the 
fertilization of Yucca. Trans. St. Louis Acad., 1873, iii, 55 ; abstract in Am. Nat- 
uralist, 1873, vii, 475. (3.) Supplementary notes on Pronuba yuccasella. Trans. 
St. Louis Acad., 1873, iii, 178. (4.) On the oviposition of the Yucca moth. Ibid., 
208. (5.) Further remarks on Pronuba yuccasella, and on the pollination of 
Yucca. Ibid., 568. (6.) Capture of Sphyngidae by Physianthus albenS. Ibid., cxv. 

RiMPAtr, W. (1.) Die Ziichtung neuer Getreidevarietiiten. Laudwirtsch. Jahrb., 
1877, vi, 199. (2.) Die Selbststerilitilt des Roggens. Landwirtschaftliche Jahrb., 
1877, vi, 1073. 

RoHRBACH, P. Ueber Epipogium graelini. Gekriinte Preisschrift, Gottingen, 18G6. 

RoTiiROCK. The fertilization of flowering idants. Am. Naturalist, 1867, i, 64. 

RUSSEL, I, C. The fertilization of Wisteria. Am. Naturalist, 1879, xiii, 648. 

S., E. T. Flowers of the primrose destroyed by birds. Nature, 1874, ix, 509. 

Sachs, Julius. Text Book of Botany. Translated and annotated by A. W. Bennett, 
assisted by W. T. T. Dyer, Oxford, at the Clarendon press, 1875. Phenomena of 
sexual reproduction, p. 801. 

Saporta, Gaston de. Le monde des plants avant I'apparition de I'homme. 14-page 
review by Lesquereux, Silliman's Journal, 1879, 4. ser., xvii, 270. 

Schelver. Kritik der Lehre von der Geschlechtern dcr Pflanzen. Heidelberg, 1812. 

ScHULTZ-ScnuLTZENSTEiN. Die Fortpflanzung undEmiihrung der Pflanzen. 1828. 

Scott, John. (1.) Observations on the functions and structure of the reproductive 
organs in the Primulacese. Journal Linn Soc. Bot., 1864, viii. (2.) On the 
individual sterility and cross-impregnation of certain species of Oncidium. Jour- 
nal Linn Soc, 1864, viii, 162. (3.) On difl'erent kinds of flowers in a single in- 
florescence. London Journal Bot., 1872, i, 161. 

ScuDDER, J. H. On Pogonia ophioglaasoidcs. Proc. Boston Soc. Nat. Hist., 1863, ix. 

Seabroke, G. M. Flowers of the primrose destroyed by birds. Nature, 1874, ix, 509. 

Shaw, James. Yellow crocuses. Nature, 1877, xvi, 9. 

Southwell, J. Flowers of the primrose destroyed by birds. Nature, 1874, x, 6. 

Sprengel, Christian Konrad. Das entdeckto Geheimuiss der Natur im Bau und in, 
der Befruchtung der Blumen. Berlin, 1793. 

Stkbbing. T. R. Flowers of the primrose destroyed by birds. Nature, 1874, ix, 509. 

Stuasburger, E. Die Bestliubung der Coniferen. Jen. Zeitschr., 1371, vi, 249. 

Taylor, J. E. (1.) The geological antiquity of flowers and insects. Pop. Science 
Review, Jan., 1878, 36. (2.) Flowers: Their Origin, Shapes, Perfumes, and Colors. 
Boston, 1878. 

Tegetmeir, W. B. Color-sense in birds — blue and yellow crocuses. Nature, 1877, 
xvi, 163. 

TiiURBER, Geo. A cruel flower — the bladder-flower. Am. Agric, 1877, xxxvi, 180, 

Todd, J. E. On certain contrivances for cross-fertilization in flowers. Am. Natural- 
ist, 1879, xiii, 1. 



NECTAR AND ITS USES. 343 

Trelease, Wm. (1.) On the fertilization of several species of Lobelia. Am. Natu- 
ralist, 1879, xiii, 427. (2.) On the fertilization of Symplocarper fcetidus; Am. 
Naturalist, 1879, xiii, 580. (3.) The fertilization of our native sjjecies of Clitoria 
and Centrosema. Am. Naturalist, 1879, xiii, 688. 

Treviranus. (1.) Die Lehre von Geschlecht derPflanzen im Bezugauf die neuesten 
Angriffe. (2. ) Ueber Dichogamie nach C. C. Spreugel und Chas. Darwin. Bot. 
Zeit., 1863, No. 2. (3.) On heterostyUd species of Linum. Bot. Zeit., 1863, S. 
189. (4.) Nachtriigliche Bemerkungen iiber die Befcuchtung einiger Orchideen. 
Bot. Zeit., 1863, No. 32,241. 

Trimen, R. (1. ) On the fertilization of Disa grandiflora. Joum. Linn. Soc. Bot., 1863, 
vii, 144. (2.) On the structure of Bonatea speciosa, with reference to its fertiliza- 
tion. Journ. Linn. Soc., 1865, ix, 156. 

VansenburiG, M. W. Gentiana Andrewsii. Am. Naturalist, 1865, ix, 310. 

Wallace, A. R. (1.) On the peculiar relations of plants and insects as exhibited on 
islands. Nature, No. 358, 406. (2.) Bees killed by Tritoma. Nature, xvii, 45. 
(3.) Tropical Nature and other Essays. London, 1878. (4.) The Malay Archi- 
pelago. London, 1872. 

Ward, Lester F. On Sabbatia anguhiris. Meehan's Gardener's Monthly, 1878, 278. 

Warming, Eug. Smaa biologiske og morfologiske Bidrag. Bot. Tidsskrift, Kjoben- 
havu, 1877. 

Weale, J. P. Mansel. Notes on thestructure ajid fertilization of the genus Bonatea. 
Joum. Linn. Soc. Bot., 1867, x, 470. (2.) Note on a species of Disperis found 
on the Kageberg, South Africa. Journ. Linn. Soc. Bot., 1871, xiii, 42. (3.) 
Some observations on the fertilization of Disa macrantha. Ibid., 45. (4.) Notes 
on some species of Habenaria found in South Afric^v. Ibid., 47. 

Westwood. On the fertilization of the fig. Trans. Ent. Soc, London, ii, 214. 

West of Scotland Horticultural Magazlne. Fertilization of Orchids. Sept., 
1863, 65. 

WiLLDENOW. Grundriss der Kxiiut erkunde, 353. 

Wilson, Alex. S. (I.) On the nectar of flowers. Rept. Brit. As. Adv. Sc, 1878, 567. 
(2.) Notes on some dimorphic plants. Ibid., 568. (3.) Some mechanical arrange- 
ments subserving cross-fertilization of plants by insects. Ibid., 568. 

Wood, Alphonso, Cleistogene flowers. Bulk Torr. Bot. Club, 1877, vi, 174. 

Wood and Steele. Fourteen Weeks in Botany. New York, 1879. 

Wright, Charles. Cross-fertilization [of Posoqueria]. Am. Naturalist, 1868, ii, 
437. 

Young, H. W. Fertilization of Gerardia flava. Bulk Torr, Bot. Club, 1873, iv, 41. 



^PFEilSTDICES. 



In the appendices will be found a large amount of the material which has been 
drawn upon in generalizing for the main body of the report, and which we have left 
in its original form for accurate reference. Many interesting additional facts will 
also be found which, not bearing directly on the subject in hand, have not been incor- 
porated into the body of the report. 



345 



^FFENDIX I. 



REPORTS OF SPECIAL AGENTS AND LOCAL OBSERVERS. 

In this appendix will be found the reports of Prof. A. R. Grote, Mr. E. 
A. Sclnvarz, Dr. E, H. Anderson, Judge William J. Jones, Prof. J. E. 
Willet, and Mr. William Trelease. My own report on my observations 
during the season of 1878, having formed the basis of the present report, 
will not here be incorporated. Prof. E. A. Smith, of Tuscaloosa, Ala., 
as local observer, made an extended series of observations, the results 
of wiiich were very important. But as these results were communicated 
to the department from time to time as they were obtained, Professor 
Smith did not make a formal report. 



REPORT OF E. A. SCHWARZ, OF WASHINGTON, D. C. 

Sir : I have the honor to submit herewith a preliminary report on the insects living 
on or injurious to the cotton-plant on the Bahamas. 

The cultivation of the cotton-plant dates back to the beginning of last century. 
Catesby, who visited the Bahamas in 1720, mentions that the cotton-plant was at that 
time ])erennial and growing without cultivation on the island of New Providence. 
From this remote time up to 1H34 a considerable amount of cotton was raised on almost 
all the larger islands. Very little information regarding cotton insects in this oldest 
period can be obtained at the present time. What facts I have been able to obtain 
will be mentioned below. 

In the year 1834 the cotton cultivation was suddenly and completely abandoned in 
consequence of the emancipation of the slaves. Tlie only relic of the cotton culti- 
vation in slavery times is the wild cotton tree, called ''fiy-away cotton" by the inhab- 
itants of Long Island, and which I saw occasionally, though not often, on the more 
elevated hills of this island. It is a very tall shrub, or rather tree, from 15 to 20 feet 
in height. The bolls of this wild cotton are, however, very small, and the cotton is 
full of seeds and iintit for ginning. 

The outbreak of the civil war in the United States caused a very vigorous resump- 
tion of cotton raising on the Bahamas. In 18G3 an American company erected a steam 
gin in the southern extremity of Long Island, and the colonial government distributed 
at the same time seven hand gins (Eagle gins) for the free use of the planters of Long 
Island and Gfeat Exuma. Almost immediately after the conclusion of the war this 
industry began to decline, owing partly to the indolence of the natives, partly to the 
increasing ravages of the cotton-bug, and at the present time it is confined to Exuma 
and especially to Long Island. 

The American company broke up its establishment in 1866, and of the seven gins 
furnished by the government only two are in use now, and both of these on Long 
Lxland. 

But it is safe to say that the cotton culture of the present time, insignificant as it 
may be compared with that of a smgle connty of the Southern States, is firmly estab- 
lished on Long Island. A large portion of the population, which amounts to about 
3.0(;0 souls, depends for its living entirely upon the income derived from cotton culture. 
Moreover, the large number of sheep which are raised on that island, and which are the 
most important article of export except sponges, are fed exclusively with cotton seeds. 
The amount of cotton raised at present on the Bahamas does not, in my estimation, 
exceed 1.^.0 bales. 

I took the first opportunity that offered itself to proceed to that island, which I 
reached on the 31st of March, after a tedious voyage of more than three days in a 
small open sailing-boat. 

Long Island, which, like the other islands of that archipelago, is composed of honey- 

347 



348 REPORT UPON COTTON INSECTS. 

combed coral limestone, extends about 65 miles from north to south, with a width 
varying from 2 to 15 miles. The settlements and fields are scattered over the whole 
island, which is verj' hilly, and entirely covered with dense shrubbery. A "tield," 
when cleared of these shrubs, presents the aspect of a perfectly grayish-white rock, 
apparently without any soil. However, in the numerous cracks and "pockets" of the 
rock some humus has accumulated and renders cultivation possible. Owing to this 
character of the ground the cotton-plauta are planted very scattered and irregularly, 
there being on one acre often not more than 100 plants. However, these latter are, in 
this most favorable climate, of very vigorous growth, and reach sometimes a prodig- 
ious size if they are not trimmed. There are two varieties of short, staple cotton planted 
in Long Island: "Anguilla" and "Georgia" cotton, the latter, as the name indicates, 
imported from the United States ; the former probably imported from the West Indies. 
Georgia cotton is perfectly white, Anguilla a little yellowish ; both are considered as of 
equal value. The seeds of either kind are black, bat not as smooth as that of sea-island 
cotton. This latter variety was introduced in the Bahamas in 18(52, but as it has to 
be replanted every year is not fit for cultivation. Cotton on the Bahamas is planted 
during the months of January, Februjiry, and March ; it blossoms in August, " blows" 
in September, and the crop is picked in January. At the same time the plant " fresh- 
ens " up, and there is a second crop in May. The plant is then trimmed, and blows 
again in September; and so on. After the third year the plant is considered exhausied, 
and the field replanted. Each plant leaves, therefore, five crops. Cotton is cultivated 
on Exuma and Long Island exclusively by negroes, there being no white men on these 
islands except the " magistrate" and the Episcopal preacher. The cultiva.tion is in my 
opinion carried on in the most careless way. 

As to the insects injurious to the cotton-plant, my inquiries and investigatiou con- 
cerning the cotton-worm gave the following unexpected result. Tlie cotton-worm was 
well known in slavery times and recently up to 1866. It was injurious every year 
before 1834, and was to be seen the whole year around, but less numerous after the 
stormy season, which is in September and October, and most numerous just before the 
heginning of the galea. 

In general Jlcliu was not considered by the natives as a very serious enemy of the 
cotton-plant, as the damage done by it was always small when compared with the 
ravages of a much more formidable enemy, of which I shall speak later. It is the 
unanimous opinion of the inhabitants of Long Island that after the famous hurricane 
of October 1, 1866, this insect has never been observed on that island nor Exuma. In 
confirmation of this opinion I must remark that I myself, after five days' most scrupu- 
lous investigation, failed to discover the slightest trace of Aletia. On inquiry I was 
informed that before the fall of 1866, in March and April, the worms called " chenille " 
Ly the natives were pretty numerous and easily found. As the natives were able to 
obsen'c this insect in former years, they would have seen it also after 1806 if it had not 
disappeared. 

With this conclusion, and after my failure to find Jlefia,! do not hesitate a moment 
to declare it as a fact that at the present time there is no excessive multiplication of 
Aletia on the Bahamas, and an emigration of the iusect from those islands to the United 
States is in the highest degree improbable. 

As for myself, I do not doubt the statement of the natives that Aletia has become 
extinct on these islands, either in consequence of the hurricane of 186G or from reasons 
unknown to me. 

The most formidable enemy of the cotton culture on the Bahamas is one much more 
injurious to that plant than Aletia has ever been either on those islands or in the 
United States, an enemy which makes the continuance of the cotton culture on tho 
Bahamas very questionable. It is the " cotton-bug," a heteropterou, probably a Ly- 
gaetis, which,'if I am not mistaken, has been found also in the United States. It punc- 
tures the green bolls, thus preventing them from opening; the bolls wilt and finally 
dry up, the half-formed cotton and dried-up seeds giving food to a number of other 
insects; more often the cotton bug crowds in the half or not quite half open bolls 
• sucking the seeds, thus preventing the cotton from blowing, or at least renders the 
cotton yellow and unfit for use. 

According to the opinions of the natives the eggs of tho cotton-bug are deposited 
in the cracks of the rock. I myself found a number of eg!^s on the leaf of a plant 
growing under a cotton-tree, but failed to raise the insect, and am therefore not sure 
that said eggs are really those of the cotton- bug. 

The insect is less numerous after the stormy season and most numerous before the 
beginning of the gales. During my visit April 1 the cotton-bugs were said to be not 
very numerous, but it appeared to me that they occurred in astonishing numbers, for 
they were to be seen on every cotton-plant. 

Early in the morning and late in the afternoon these insects literally cover all the 
bolls except the very young ones. On and in a single boll I counted 54 specimens, 
larvae, pupae, or perfect insects. It is evident that this insect does not like to expose 
itself to the rays of the midday sun, as it is to be found during the warm hours of tho 



APPENDIX I REPORTS OF OBSERVERS. 349 

day on or under the leaves of the lower part of the plant lander the dead leaves which 
lie upon the frrouud or beneath stones. 1 never saw this insect far from the cotton- 
fields, but in or near the fields they may be seen on different plants and shrul)s. I 
hnve been informed that in slavery times the slaves were " taxed " to collect by hand 
every day a quart of these bugs. At the present time their habit of crowding during 
the hot hours of the day under the dead leaves upon the ground gives the natives a 
way to destroy them in large numbers. Dry leaves, twigs, &c., are placed in suitable 
places protected from the sun and sot on fire at noon ; or, still better, a few cotton- 
seeds are thrown up in such heaps of dry debris and attract vast numbers of the in- 
sects, which are very fond of sucking tiiese seeds. However, as this remedy is not 
applied universally, it has but little or no effect, and it will be very difficult, in my 
opinion, to lind any effective remedy agaiust this pest, unless it can be attacised in the 
egg state. 

Tbe damage done by this insect is enormous; it destroys regularly the entire sum- 
mer crop, i. e., that picked in January, and destroys half or more of the second crop. 
It was very destructive in slavery times, but decifledly less numerous in the years fol- 
lowing 181j2 up to about 1868. Since that year the insect has regularly every year 
caused the damage stated above ; in the year 1879 even the May crop was almost en- 
tirely destroyed by the combined influence of a great drought and this pest. 

Tbe number of other insects living upon or found on the cotton-plant on Long Island 
is quite considerable, and have been collected by myself with great care. They may 
be divided in the following classes: 

First. Insects living actually upon the cotton-plant : Aplii^ sp. ; ^Homopterous insects 
covering the more tender twigs and even the trunks of the older trees with their eggs ; 
Microlepido[»teron, mining in the leaves ; Hypothenemus, is boring in the tender twigs ; 
a large Buprestid, living in the dead stalks; Drapetes sp., feeding upon the bark of 
the twigs; unknown insects, of which the eggs were found in clusters of three to fif- 
teen on the under side of leaves, and of which I raised the young larvae. 

Second. Insects fouud on cotron attracted by the cotton .4^j7us : Numerous ants ; sev- 
eral species of Coccinellidae; larva of Chnjsopa sp. 

Third. Insecs living in the bolls injured by the cotton-bug ; two species of Lepi- 
doptera (also fouiwl in the United States), and several Coleoptera. 

Fourth. Insects found on the cotton-tree, which I observed live elsewhere also, or 
■which do not appear to me to live exclusively upon cotton ; two species of Lepidop- 
tera; several Hemiptera and Coleoptera. None of these insects do any serious harm, 
■with the exception, perhaps, of the insect designated above as " -^Homopteron," which, 
by fastening its eggs, covered with a white tiocculent matter, around the young loaf- 
buds, causes them to wilt and to die. 

A full list of the species of the insects found by myself on the cotton-plant on the 
Bahamas can only be given when the specimens -wb properly mounted. A large part 
of my notes have not l)een incorporated in the foregoing report, which I beg to con- 
sider only as a preliuiinary one, written in a very hasty manner. The conclusions 
which can be drawn Irom my observations, especially tbe conclusions as to the biber- 
nation of Alet'ia in tbe United States, will bo forwarded to the department in due time. 
I have the honor to remain, yours, very respectfully, 

E. A. SCHWARZ. 

Savaxxah, Ga., April 13, 1879. 
C. V. Riley, 

Entomologist, Department of Agriculture. 



REMARKS ON THE HIBERNATION OF ALETIA. 

The principal result of my trip to the Bahama Islands is the conclusion that an im- 
migration of AUtia from the Bahamas to the United States has been impossible, at least 
since the year 1855. With almost equal certainty it may be concluded that an immi- 
gration of the insect from Porto Rico or Hayti or any other island of the West Indies 
is impossible, because such an immigration would doubtless have restocked with cotton- 
■tt^orms the Bahama Islands before reachiug the coast of Florida or Georgia. 

Now, in view of the fact that in Florida and on Saint Catharine's Island (the only 
one of the sea islands of Georgia where at the present time cotton is planted to any 
extent) the cotton insect has appeared regularly every year since 180(5, though not nu- 
merous enough to do any serious damage, it appears very probable that Aletia is indig- 
enous within our country. 

There is still the possibility that Aletia could immigrate every year to the United 
Sta es from Mexico or Yucatan or South America. To this I have to remark : 

First. That to my knowledge nothing definite is known about AlcMa and its habits 
in the countries mentioned. We do not know even whether the insect occurs there at 
the present time or not. It is, however, safe to say that as cotton is raised in those 



350 REPORT UPON COTTON INSECTS. 

countries only to a very limited extent, and not in continnons belts, the insect labors, 
therefore, unller conditions unfavorable to an excessive multiplication. 

Second. Ahtia acquires migratory habits alone by excessive multiplication, as I have 
had ample opportunity to observe during last spring and summer. 

Third. Sbonld the insect in the countries named above multiply excessively, and 
therefore acquire migratory habits, its first appearance in the United States would be 
very sudden and in large numbers, and jjerhaps confined to the regions nearest the coast. 
The inlorraation I received last winter from numerous plauters, which was fully cor- 
roborated by my own observation during last spring, proves that the tifst generation 
of worms is everywhere very scarce in numbers, and that the insect does by no means 
ai»pear first near the coast, but at various localities within the more southern portion 
oi the cotton-belt. 

In view of the facts mentioned above, the theory of the annual immigration of Aletia 
from tropical countries appears to be seriously weakened, and only snpjwrted by the 
nndeniable fact that nobody ever found Aletia hibernating iti any of its stages in the 
United States. On this latter point I have already expressed my opinion in a lonuer 
letter to the department, and will only repeat here that the failure of others and my- 
self to tind Ah'tia in its winter quarters is no proof at all against the theory of the 
hibernation of this insect in the United States. 

In connection with this eubject, I would like to mention that, at various places 
throughout the cotton- growing Slates, numerous planters, and among them very observ- 
ing and intelligent ones, as^sert that they have seen the cotton-moth flying about houses, 
&c., on warm evenings in winter time and early spring. How miK-h trutli there is in 
these assertions I do not know, but the fact is that they only saw the insect filing 
about, and never actually captured an Aletia, and still less sent it to entomologists for 
identification. All moths either attracted by light or by sweets and oapturod by my- 
self in winter time in the Soulhern States proved without exceptio:; to be other species 
than Aletia. I object, therefore, to the argument just mentioned being brought forth 
at the present time in favor of the theory of hibernation of Aletia. 

What I have said above on the hibernation of Aletia refers only to the more southern 
portion of the cotton- belt of the United St.ites, as everybody who has traveled t' rough 
the Southern States must bo convinced that the insect never hibernates in the more 
northern portion of the cotton district. Its a])pearauce there is exclusively duo to 
immigration of the insect from its breediug-places in the southern portions of the 
cotton-belt. 

If circumstances are favorable to its development the insect can acquire migratory 
habits in its second generation, or, at any rate, very early in the season, and the 
result would be a more or less destructive appearatico of cotton-worms throughout the 
cotton-growing States. Usually, however, the insect is kept in cheek by its natural 
enemies and by climatic inilueuces or by both, or the vigorous and comlMuecl eii" )rts of 
the planters iu poisoning the worms, and it acquires migratory habits only late in the 
season, say in the month of September, when its ravages in the northern poition of the 
cotton -belt does not materially injure the crop. 

It is, of course, impossible tor me to circumscribe accurately the northern limits of 
the breeding-grounds of Aletia, but they may be roughly indicated as follows: 

In Texas the breeding-ground of Aletia includes the whole extent of the cotton dis- 
trict south of the Galveston, Ilarrisburg, and San Antonio R;u]road, but extending 
farther northward along the river bottoms. In Louisiana and Mississippi it includes 
the bottom-lands of the Mississippi River and its tributaries, but 1 am unable to indi- 
cate the northern limits. In Alabama a portion or i)erhaps the wh< le of the canebrake 
region. Farther east it includes the cotton districts of Florida and perhaps a small 
portion of Southern Georgia. 

Within the area thus indicated the cotton-worm hibernates every year and appears at 
various localities, wherever it has succeeded in escnping the winter, as early in the 
season as the cotton-plant is fit to s-^rve as food for the young larva. It is hardly neces- 
sary to say that these early generations of cot ton- worm are overlooked by farmers, ond 
it is indee'd a difficult task to find the first generation of worms, as it is usually con- 
fined to small spots and as its ravages are inconsiderable. 

All efforts to keep the insect in check ought to be confined to this southern portion 
of the cotton-belt in order to prevent an excessive multiplication and with this an 
early immigration of the insect to the more northern portion of the cotton-raising 
States. 

E. A. SCHWARZ. 

Columbus, Tex., Septeniber, 1879. 

J. Henry Comstock, 

LntomologiBt, Department of Agriculture. 



APPENDIX I REPORTS OF OBSERVERS. 351 

REPORT OF A. R. GROTE, OF BUFFALO, N. Y. 

Sir : In accordance with your favor of July 18, iu which you directed me to visit the 
States of Georgia and Florida for the purpose of making observations on the insects 
injurious to the cotton plant, Iproceeded to Savannah, and, during the following m(mth 
of August, madeexamiuations of cotton-fields at different points between Savannah and 
Atlanta. Having charged me especially with that phase of the cotton-worm inquiry 
which comes under the head of migrations, 1 directed my chief attention to making 
observations and collecting information on the appearance and movement of the cotton- 
worm (Aleiia argillacea). 

It was first my object to ascertain if the worm could be found at the time of my visit 
at any of the points visited by me. A careful survey of the plantation of Dr. Lawton 
near Savannah, from August 1 to August 7, and other cotton patches in the vicinity, 
convinced me that the worm had not then appeared. The statements made to mo were 
to the effect that its earliest appearance was usually to be looked for about the middle 
of the month. 

Henry Gaston, engaged in planting cotton for nearly twenty years, said that the first 
brood of worms usually weba up about the middle to the latter part of August, giving 
a second brood in September. The worm was first noticed iu the stronger cotton on 
the bottom-lands. The worm was never found by him on anything but cotton, and 
he had noticed it leaving one patch of cotton and going to another when leaf failed 
and there was nothing for the worms to continue feeding upon. He had used Paris 
green, dusted in a dry state upon the leaves, and it killed the worms. Cai'e had to be 
used by him to avoid the poison getting into his eyes or on sores or tender places of the 
body. He had observed the fly before the appearance of the worm, but had never 
noticed it in the early spring. 

This testimony is given as a sample of the information collected from various individ- 
uals. While August seems to be the usual time for the appearance of the worm on the 
mainland, on the coast of Georgia, in the neighborhood of Savannah, the testimony of 
Dr. J. S. Lawton, on the sea islands off" the coast of South Carolina to the northward of 
Savannah, is to the effect that the worm appears sometimes as early as July and is then 
usually excessively injurious to the long-staple cottons. 

In Southwestern Georgia the worm is noticed as early as the last week in June in 
some years, and the main damage inflicted in the State seems to come from this quar- 
ter. The worm occurs there every year, though the date at which it is noticed varies. 
The question whether the earliest so-called "brood" is the first appearance of the 
worm iu any quarter has been raised by yourself, and is one to which I hoiie to be able 
to pay close attention in the spring. 

For the present we must accept the testimony that the worm seems to advance from 
Southwest Georgia over the western and occasionally over the central portions of the 
State. It seems to come from Decatur to Baker, Calhoun, Dougherty, and Lee Coun- 
ties. According to present testimony its appearance is not simultaneous over this sec- 
tion of the State, the southern portions being first visited. 

From testimony collected by myself in Athens, on the occasion of the meeting of the 
Agricultural Society of Georgia, the following counties are visited by the cotton-worm 
every year, though the exact time is not, according to testimony, the same; Cal- 
houn, Decatur, Dougherty, Lee, Macon, Schley, Taylor. Counties in which the worm 
is not noticed every year are Burke, Clarke, Fulton, Green, Hancock, Jones, Monroe, 
Putnam, Richmond. 

It will be seen that the central portion of the State is less subject to the devastation 
of the cotton-worm than the southwestern and western. Under the theory of its grad- 
ual spreading from south to north we may suppose a seaboard source of infection and 
one from the southwest and the State of Alabama. 

Collections of other insects on the cotton-plants, which I found in my journey from 
Savannah to Atlanta, were made and forwarded to you. At Atlanta I found the larva 
of atheroma regalis feeding on the cotton-plant at the end of August. This species 
occurs singly, and although of large size never does much damage. There is but one 
brood in the year, and the larva feeds besides on the gum, persimmon, walnut, and 
hickory. 

From the Hon. Robert Toombs I learned that there was an emigration of French 
cotton-planters in Martinique to Southwest Georgia in 1801-1802 on account of the 
ravages of the cotton-worm in the West Indies. Mr. Toombs sold his plantations in 
Southwest Georgia on account of the ravages iu 1835 committed by the cotton-worm 
iu Early and Clay Counties. The cotton- worm has been shown by me to be a tropical 
insect in my paper before the American Association for the Advancement of Science, 
read at the Hartford meeting, and the fact must be conceded that prior to the culti- 
vation of cotton in the United States it could have made no foothold iu our territory. 
I received in November, 1878, fresh instructions from you to proceed to Georgia for 
the purpose of ascertaining whether I could find eggs from the last moths on any por- 
tion of the plant and any facts hearing on the hibernation of the moth. On the plan- 



352 REPORT UPON COTTON INSECTS. 

tations near Savannah I fonnd that the worm was first noticed the current year on 
September 4. I f(mnd a large number of chrysalides yet on the plant on November 
10 to 25. The nights were frosty and the leaf withered and scant. In places shel- 
tered by trees the leaf was still green, and here I found (November 16) a few cater- 
pillars not yet spun up. A large number of the chrysalides were empty ; about 40 
per cent, contained the parasites, the most numerous of which were pupae of Pimpla 
conqumtor. There were also a number of Tachina larvae noticed. Less than a quarter 
of the chrysalides contained the undeveloped moth. 

I carefully searched the stems without finding any eggs of the moth. An examina- 
tion of the woods, logs, and brushwood yielded no chrysalides of the cotton-worm. 
From t he appearance of the chrysalides on the plants it must be conceded that the last 
worms do not quit the plant nor prepare themselves for winter in any way. In my 
opinion the chrysalides which do not yield the moth and are retarded by the severity of 
the weatker cannot conceal themselves in any way in the ground, and must probably 
perish from the cold or in the process of removing the dead plants to prepare for a 
fresh crop of cotton. 

Under your instructions I visited the Georgia sea islands during the end of Novem- 
ber and beginning of December. I found that the worm had appeared this year in 
September, as on the mainland, but later in the month. It had also not spread, and 
had attacked certain corners of the fields, where I now found the chrysalides. None of 
these contained undeveloped moths ; they were either empty or ichneumonized. There 
had been no second brood of the worm on the islands, according to testimony collected 
by me, and which was home out by my own observations. 

I returned to Washington in December, reporting to you my observations, and hav- 
ing previously mailed to you specimens collected by me. On this trip I found the case 
of what is probably a large Oiketicus. The presence of this genus in the United States 
is indicated by Abbott, in Harris's Correspondence, edited by Mr. S. H. Scndder. I 
had previously examined the Cuban species O. T'ocyi, but until now had never met any 
species in our American collections outside of the West Indies. The specimen was 
fastened to the main stem, near the top, of a cotton-plant, on a plantation near Savan- 
nah. It was duly mailed to you, and if it is reared will be interesting from a scien- 
tidc point of view. 

As the result of my late observations I may say that the fact, I think first announced 
by myself, is confirmed that the "cotton-worm" passes the winter, when it survives 
at all, as a moth, and that the last foil worms do not leave the plant to web up. The 
full history of the worm in Georgia can be made out when the country is fully explored 
in the spring, and before the first appearance of the worm in numbers. It will then 
be made clear where the first large numbers of the worm come from ; whether they 
are the results of fresh invasions of the moth, or are the product of a first generation 
from eggs of hibernating individuals. In the mean time my present and former obser- 
vations go to prove that the successful hibernation of the moth is not accomplished in 
all localities of the cotton-growing States, and that there is a general dispersion of the 
insect in the moth stage from south to north. 

Under yonr intelligent supervision of the inquiry and with the facilities which yoa 
possess from difterent sections of the South, I have no doubt that this important matter 
will receive final and full elucidation. 

My thanks are due to Mr. Y. Rauers, of Saint Catharine's Island ; Dr. W. S.Lawton, 
of Savannah ; Messrs. T. G. Hall, of Macon, Ga. ; J. E. Redwine, Hull County, Georgia ; 
E. C. Grier, Griswoldville, Jones County ; Y. Pinckney Thomas, Waynes Blutr, Burke 
County, Georgia; State Geologist George A. Little, of Atlanta, Ga. ; and others who 
have assisted me in my work. 
Yours, respectfully, 

A. R. GROTE. 

Buffalo, N. Y. 



REPORT OF E. H. ANDERSON, M. D., OF KIRKWOOD, MISS. 

Sir : I herewith have the honor to make my general report, summarizing my ob- 
servations upon Aletia during the past season. It would be a mere repetition, and 
therefore a work of supererogation, to enter into any description of the insect, either 
as moth or larva, as this has been already well done by expert entomological observ- 
ers, and I shal 1 confine my remarks to a few of its features more intimately concerned 
in its propagation. 

Owing to highly-favoring atmospheric conditions, the insect was to be found through- 
out this cotton-belt, but, as usual, infested and ravaged certain portions to a much 
greater extent than others. Its history and mode of operation in my immediate local- 
ity would furnish a synopsis of its operations everywhere, as all the laws under which 



APPENDIX I REPORTS OF OBSERVERS. 353 

it lives and moves and has its being were in full operation here. It appeared as 
early as July in a few fields, and, passing through three generations, left not a leaf 
behind. In others, it appeared later, doing less damage, but leaving no vegetation. 
In others, later still, doing but slight damage, but eating and destroying until arrested 
in its course by frost. In other cases it appeared early, doing no noticeable damage. 
It was preceded by our grass- worm, which I have only observed in the early summer 
or spring, and of which i have never seen two broods in one season, and which never 
l)roves damaging to cotton, though it will to a limited extent cut it down when young 
and eat the leaves of older cottoa. This grass- worm and Alctia are often confounded, 
and some of our most intelligent i^lanters insist that Alttia is the progeny of the grass- 
worm, and they base their belief upon the fact that where you find the grass-worm 
early in the season, in from twenty to thirty days you are sure to find Aletia. They 
think the difference in appearance is owing to an advance in the season. A compari- 
son of the insects and their different modes of pupation settles this question conclu- 
sively. Aletia, with its bright stripes, yellow bead spotted with black, its false ven- 
tral feet, consequent looping gait, with each of its sixteen sections having sixteen 
black spots or tubercles, from which a hair or bristle projects, and its general business- 
like carriage, once known, cannot be mistaken for any other. 

The first cotton-worms were observed here last season about the 20th July, in a field 
of about 25 acres and in the lowest sijot, the first generation destroying about :5 acres 
of cotton. There were none to be found there in any other field, and none nearer than 
30 miles south, near Canton. This 2r)-acre field was isolated and surrounded by forest. 

Did the moth come by migration or was it bred there ? June and July had been 
characterized by frequent rains ; but from the first appearance of the worms the 
showers were becoming occasional, and nothing indicated the arrival of the miller or 
moth. From the first to the last of August, while showei's were occasional, the worm 
continued to ajjpear in difterent fields ; in the older fields first, in the newer and 
fresher later. 

MIGRATIONS. 

This might be accounted for by short migrations of the moth, but more naturally 
from its being indigenous. That the worm appears in different latitudes, earlier south 
and later north, as thermal temperature increases, there is no doubt ; and under this 
law of development it reaches its ultimate northern limit last. Close observ.ations of 
the moth and worm furnish no indications of a migratory tendency. The moth se- 
cretes itself by day, and at night confines its flight to a limited area ; and instead of 
spreading or depositing its eggs over a large area, seems to concentrate them, and oc- 
cupies just as much as will be eaten by each generation and no more. The worm 
seems averse also to migrate ; and, as has been noticed by others and myself, will eat 
up to a line and will not cross it, and, it has been asserted, will not eat other cotton 
if placed upon it. Where they have stripped a field I have seen them wandering in 
the grass, on fence-rails, and the sward on the outside of a field, looking, probably, for 
food or to pupate. The migratory theory is doubtless based upon the supposition that 
the insect does not hibernate in any form in this latitude, and even two degrees south 
of this. Upon this point observers difier ; and it is not only an interesting question 
entomologically, but one of vital interest to this commission, as its objects cannot be 
successfully accomplished until we arrive at something like certainty as to the history 
of the insect. 

For twenty years past I have been a casual observer of the cotton-worm, and, as far 
as my memory serves me, recollect it as an annual visitor, often in such small numbers 
as to attract no attention, but occasionally to have proved very damaging. My atten- 
tion was first arrested by a phenomenal mode of generation, of which I could get no 
explanation from my more experienced planting friends, I therefore took the subject 
into mature consideration. In this case, the eggs of the moth, though no moth had 
been seen, had been deposited on the cotton and were there hatched, the larva destroy- 
ing all the leaves and young bolls along fifteen or twenty furrows, but did not touch 
the adjoining rows on either side. This was in July, 1858. They passed into chrysalids 
on the stalks and then disappeared, no other cotton being visited that season. I have 
frequently since seen them appear in the same mysterious way, and have verified my 
predictions as to their appearance at a particular time and place. 

' THE EGG. 

Regarding, as I do, the insect as indigenous and the chief function of the moths to 
be reproduction, the eggs would be speedily laid, after copulation, upon the cotton-leaf, 
awaiting the natural process of development. This, under favoring atmospheric con- 
ditions, proceeds annually, to a limited extent, under solar evaporation. This theory 
may be exemplified by a topographical feature, which has been strongly emphasized 
by some observers, and offers a solution of what might otherwise be unaccountable. 
Parts of a field often escape and seem to be avoided by the worm, while adjoining cot- 
ton may be totally eaten out. This is notably the case on the eastern side of fields, 
but may occur at any shaded point. I noticed a field, this season, where the worm had 

23 CI 



354 REPORT UPON COTTON ^NSECTS. 

destroyecT all the folinge in the fiehl, except a strip along the eastern fence where the 
cotton was tall and luxuriant. The fence was skirted by forest from 60 to 80 feet high, 
and consequently the rays of the sun did not strike the cotton until about ten o'clock. 
I found a few worms there and eggs abundantly. My conjecture was that, as the sun 
did not strike the cotton nntil the morning dew had all evaporated, the true condition 
for hatching by solar evaporation was absent and the larger proportion of the eggs 
remained nuhatched. The explanation would be, that the egg being albuminous and 
hence nitrogenous, as well as all eggs are, and being coated with a gelatinous or mu- 
cous outer coat as well as a denser inner coat, the egg membrane proper would be sub- 
ject to both the chemical and vital laws under which all germination occui's ; that is, 
heat and moisture induces in all nitrogenous matter fermentation and decomposition, 
and this increased heat hastens the vivification of the germ which would organize 
under its vital law. 

Suppose, however, solar evaporation to be intensified by an artificial process, would 
not hatching necessarily proceed more rapidly ? In the nature of things it inevitably 
would, and as far as eggs came within its influence they would be speedily hatched. 
The process referred to is that of plowing laud when wet, under a hot sun. The effect 
is to destroy capillarity and expose the up- turned furrow to rapid evaporation, by which 
means the volume of air surrounding the cotton would be loaded with vapor and the 
temperature increased 10^ or 12^ F. This process effects in a short time, perhaps a 
few minutes, what ordinarj' solar evaporations or telluric radiations would not effect 
in a season. You likewise, by this bad tillage, give back to the air the fatness of the 
earth, for you thereby extricate the valuable gases which a bounteous Heaven has 
sent, and it really seems to me that the worm is a just retribution. 

I have repeatedly brought the egg of Aletia in from the field this season and placed 
it under the solar microscope. As seen by the naked eye, it is a minute green globule, 
as large as a celery-seed and somewhat greener than the leaf upon which it is found. 
[I have rarely seen more than four eggs upon any one leaf, sometimes near together, 
but oftener far apart. All invariably attached to the iinder part of the leaf by a gum- 
ming substance secreted by the mother moth in incubation.] The egg varies from a 
deep green to an almost transparent color, according to age ; and those gathered late 
in the fall are darker aud almost black. On being broken they were found to contain 
a translucent fluid. Under the microscope it exhibits the conical shape and curved 
ridges, radiating from apex to base, so well described by others, and presents the ap- 
pearance of a granulated diamond, sparkling from innumerable points. Being so mi- 
nute I can say nothing of its internal structure, but, from its burstiug under pressure, 
knew that the investing membrane is indued with clastic power aud affords to the 
germ requisite protectiou ; and as it only changes color and shrivels as the season ad- 
vances, retaining its contents clear, I am disposed to think it may survive a winter. 
I am now testing its capability for hibernation in different modes ; have some on leaves 
in my house, some underground, others iu boxes under earth, and others suspended 
in the air in muslin cages. All look black except those that have hatched. As cold 
could only affect Ihe vitality of the germ by its intensity, and the chemical forces that 
would promote vital activity are dormant under its inffuence, I conjecture that the 
egg falling to the ground with Ihe detritus of the plant and covered by earth would 
remain quiescent until acted upon by its appropriate stimulus, heat and moisture, aud 
this woiild not bo sufficiently potential until June or July in this latitude. 

Professor Riley, in his admirable report upon the grasshopper of the West, showing 
a degree of patient and thorough investigation rarely equaled, gives a minute descrip- 
tion of the process of ovipositiou, and auuouuccs clearly the physiological law under 
which the hatching of the egg must occur, and in his experiments, whei-e he transferred 
the eggs, after repeated freezing and thawing, to moist earth, intelligently consulted 
nature and artificially produced the best condition for hatching. The moist vapor cre- 
ated bj- radiated heat, permeated, perhaps, by gases, was the most propitious menstruum. 

THE CHRYSALIS. 

Many of the chrysalids brought in by me came forth perfect moths. From the shell, 
in other cases, issued the ichneumon lly ; in some cases the sole occupant, in others the 
co-tenant of a dead moth partly consumed. I brought them in from the field as late 
as the 16th of November, full of Vitality. To-day, January 7, Ib79, I examined several 
taken from boxes cf earth, glass jars, and gauze cages, all placed in my piazza, in the 
outer air, subjected to all the changes of the season, with the thermometer for the last 
twenty-one days at or below freezing, and once or twice as low as 28° below freezing, 
and on warming them they showed animation, and their movements became very sen- 
sible. I have no doubt about carrying them through the winter successfully. Many 
of our most observant plauters affirm that they plow them up every spring, and find 
them alive. Many of them perish, but enough survive to perpetuate the species. The 
earth affords i^rotection by concealing and by warmth — in the one case protecting 
against enemies, such as hogs, birds, &c., and in the other against inclemency of sea- 
son. Could planters be iuduced to harrow their lands iu winter, thereby exposing 
" them, a great majority would be destroyed. 



APPENDIX I REPORTS OF OBSERVERS. 355 

THE MOTH. 

Tlie moths that issue from the surviving chrysalids are doubtless the progenitors of 
our first brood of larvae, reproducing slowly until favored by propitious circumstances. 
Being of the owlet family, and tij' ing only at dusk and at night, the study of its habits 
is rendered very difiicult. From the chrysalids I obtained a number which I kept in 
confinement. They were supplied with sweets, and ate voraciously ; indeed, it was 
interesting to see with what adroitness they projected their suction-tubes and ma- 
neuvered its patulous end in the molasses as it trickled down the jar. They laid their 
eggs abundantly on the sides of the jar and on the muslin covering of the top, but 
none survived the twenty-second day. They commenced dying on the iifteenth day, 
and by the twenty-second all were dead. This was in September. In October and 
November they did not live so long. 

As we have good reason to believe that each generation proceeds from the moth of 
the immediately preceding generation, and from experiment and observation I am 
forced to the conclusion that the moth does not survive its generation, I bred them, 
and they were in cotton-fields all around me ; but since the 1st of December, though 
diligently searching, I have been unable to fiud a living moth. Throughout the season 
I have been trying to find out what it feeds upon, knowing its fondness for sweets in 
confinement, but without success. 

Learning from Professor Riley of his discovery that the moth visited the plant to 
feed upon a sweet which exudes from a notable gland on the middle rib of the cotton 
leaf, I watched often, hoping to detect them in the act of sucking, but without suc- 
cess. The establishment of this fact and the secretion of this sweet at a certain stage 
of maturity of the plant, and the further fact that this secretion is more active at 
night, as vegetable physiology would induce us to suppose, would throw a flood of light 
upon the history and habits of the insect. As an instance of the effect of light and its 
fondness for sweets, I will mention what a neighbor told me, and for which, to a great 
extent, I had ocular demonstration. He was engaged in boiling sirup from the first of 
September to the last of October. His yard, where his evaporatiug-pan was, opened 
upon a field of 60 or 80 acres of cotton. He each morning found his pan covered with 
moths, and from first to last thought he had emptied out one bushel of moths. 

Another case showing strikingly the effect of light and sweets was told me by a 
highly valued Texas correspondent. A neighbor of his, by the use of lights and poi- 
soned sweets, had made 1,000 bales of cotton on 1,000 acres, while his neighbors who 
had not used them had been badly damaged. I experimented with poisoned sweets, 
using salicylic acid and molasses and other poisons and sweets, and though fatal to 
moths it was so, likewise, to birds and innocuous insects. Humanity here enters a plea 
that should not be ignored by avarice. Lights and simple sweets would destroy num- 
bers without injury "to others. For the worm or larva some arsenical preparation, and 
as far as my knowlege goes that of Preston and Robira, called the " Texas Cotton- 
Worm Destroyer," is the best before the public. This is used by pumping it on the 
cotton. If a cheap and effective machine could be invented for its thorough applica- 
tion the worm might be exterminated, but the trouble and expense and the prejudice 
against the use of poisons would x^reclude general use. 

EXPERIMENTS. 

My experiments during the last season were entirely of an agricultural character 
and were made with a view to test my own theory. They were not initial, lor I had 
. practiced them during the last thirteen years, and could anticipate the result from 
former experience. 

I selected various fields, some undulating, some bottom land, and others hillside. 
In some cases sandy, in others loamy, and in others clayey. In all cases the work was 
done where there was no appearance of moth or worm. The work was sometimes done 
•with the bar-plow and sometimes with the solid sweep. 

Case 1.— Solid sweep used July 25, second day after rain ; condition of land tillable, 
except in one low spot, the former bed of a small pond, which was then wet enough 
to clog the sweep. Worm appeared in this spot in ten days after plowing. 

Case 2.— Bar-plow used ; valley land, sandy and loamy. Ground wet, and so wet 
that the furrow rolled over without breaking. This was on the 23th July. Grass- 
, worm appeared there in ten days. 

Case 3.— Undulating laud, loamy and fresh. Bar-plow used 1st of August. Soil too 
. -wet to break before the plow. Worm appeared in ten or twelve days. 

Case 4.— Land rich vegetable mold and sand, with some clay ; partly upland and 
bottom. Etlge of upland plowed 10th of August while wet. Bottom laud too wet 
and not plowed. In twelve days worms appeared on the plowed land ; none on the 
unplowed. 

Case 5.— Rolling land, sandy and loamy. Had plowing done on the 12th of August 
in the bottom. Land wet, clodding before the plow; plowed part of the field. In ten 
days worm made its appearance as far as plowing extended and no farther. 



356 EEPORT UPON COTTON INSECTS. 

While conducting these experiments I had plowing also done where the land was 
in good tilth and pulverized before the plow, and no worm appeared, though visiting 
these iiekls three or four weeks later, I found a second brood of worms, the progeny 
of the first. Now, in all of these cases, had the plowing been deferred until the soil 
had become dry enough to pulverize, the speedy generation of the worm would not 
have occurred. I had one field of my own cultivated with a due observance of the 
principle here announced, and though the worms v.sited it they did it no damage, and 
this was noticeable in other fields in my neighborhood, cultivated upon the same 
principle. 

I have endeavored, in the foregoing report, to introduce and elucidate all the points 
involved in my theory, and have recapitulated in order to familiarize and impress 
them upon the minds of planters, as they are to be the chief recipients of any benefit 
that may arise from them, and through whose instrumentality they are to bo tested. 
Of them I ask. a careful study of the plan proposed, and an impartial verdict of its 
efficacy. 

From my observation this season, aided by previous knowledge of the subject, I offer 
the following postulates : 

1. That the insect Aletla is indigenous. 

2. That it does not hibernate as moth. 

3. That it does hibernate as chrysalis or pupa. 

4. That the egg is probably capable of hibernation. 

.5. That solar evaporation is the normal mode of hatching, and tha.t this occurs an- 
nually. 

6. That a favorable meteorological condition, of uncertain periodical recurrence, 
increases largely the number hatched. 

7. That plowing wet land under a hot sun produces an artificial heat and is the mosb 
prolific source of speedy generation. 

8. And finally, as a corollary deduced from the above, that, by the intelligent appli- 
cation of the principle indicated to the culture of cotton, we may more eft'ectually 
arrest the ravages of the cotton-worm than by any plan yet suggested. 



EEPORT OF JUDGE WM. J. JONES, OF VIRGINIA POINT, TEXAS. 

I beg leave to submit the following report of my observations upon the origin and 
best means of destroying the cotton army worm. 

The circulars and blanks from your department designed for distribution among 
the most intelligent planters, mailed to my address early in August, did not reach me 
till the 24th of October, being of that class of mail matter interdicted by our local 
quarantine regulations, and were not permitted to cross the borders of the State until 
the time mentioned. This detention prevents me from presenting any facts or ex- 
pression of opinion from those for whom the questions formulated were designed. 
Owing to this delay I decided in the latter jiart of August to visit in person some of 
the planters near the several lines of railway, and to open some communication with 
others farther removed, submitting such questions as could be embodied in letter form, 
asking for such information as they could furnish on point in question. 

To these letters some brief answers have been returned, but disclosing no facts differ- 
ing from those already well known concerning this destructive insect. 

The present year has been chiefly noticeable from the fact that a large portion of 
the State heretofore afiiicted with its visitations has been entirely exemx)ted from its 
presence. 

Under instructions from Professor Riley, of the Division of Entomology, I made very 
strenuous eflbrts to procure specimens of Aletia and transmitted them to him, all of 
which were safely delivered. In answer I learn that he found among them some chry- 
salides difleriug from Aletia arQillacea, the moth of which'appears to belong to another 
genus. This species, he says, has not been received from any of the other cotton 
States, and seems to i)e confined to this section of the cotton-belt. 

The cotton planters generally agree to the hibernation of the chrysalides of this in- 
sect. I may say with all confidence that the views of those who differ from the well- 
accepted theory of the worms penetrating the ground where they fall from the cotton- 
plant, result from their failure to scrutinize their movements as closely as others ; and 
it is to this fact that a different hypothesis exists; but nearly every planter is well 
satisfied of the local development of the moth. 

Such is my own unqualified conviction from the experience and close observation of 
thirty-five years as a planter. The few who have suggested the theory that the egg 
is deposited in the stalk of the cotton-plant, or that the matured insect finds protection 
in sheltered spots in our midst, are few in number. The natural formation of the moth 
must necessarily forbid the idea that its embryo could be lodged in any hard or porous 



APPENDIX I REPORTS OF OBSERVERS. 357 

substance. The ovipositor cnnuot penetrate any solid substance, and if made to ad- 
here to the bark or outer surface the eggs would perish from exposure to the weather. 

Every practical planter who has watched closely the cotton army worm knows that 
the egg is invariably deposited by the mother moth on the cotton leaf, mostly on the 
under or shady side. This egg is very small, of a pale green color, oblong iu shape, 
and is attached by a very delicate web, which holds it firmly to its place. 

The larva is hatched from this egg in from three to five days, being somewhat in- 
fluenced by the conditions of the weather. If too wet or very dry the eggs often perish 
outright. At the first stage of life the larva are scarcely visible to the naked eye, 
and are only kuown to be at work by the rank smell of decaying vegetation, the odor 
from which can never be mistaken. In from nine to eleven days the full-grown worm 
weaves a delicate web about itself, and when fully enveloped or jjrotected by its own 
plexus descends an attenuated thread to the ground, where it makes its own hiding 
place and in time transforms into the moth. This process is repeated till three genera- 
tions have appeared, consuming every cotton leaf and leaving the stalk as bare and 
sere as though withered by the nipping frosts. 

Great numbers of these chrysalides are plowed up every planting season, when they 
perish from exposure on the surface of the ground or are consumed by the feathered 
tribes that follow in the wake of the plow. 

I have watched the flight of the moths, when they have unearthed themselves, have 
followed them for long distances, and have always found them extremelj' clumsy on the 
wing, alighting iu the grass, weeds or cotton every fifteen or twenty steps, and I am 
convinced that they are incapable of long or extended flight. They cannot, therefore, 
come every season from another or distant climate. They have found here a congenial 
sphere and a limitless supply of food. 

With all these established facts, both science and observation have yet failed to ex- 
plain why the moth disappears for years, then reappears iufull force and undiminshed 
numbers upon the field of its operations. 

My own recollection is distinct, and is confirmed by all the older planters, that in 
this State for a period of ten years (from 185;} to 1863), the cotton army worm disap- 
peared almost entirely from our fields. Prom 1864 to 1874 it appeared every year in 
great numbers south of the 32d parallel. 

In 1875 it was found only in small numbers, and in detached localities, inflicting 
slight damage. In 1876 and 1877it covered the land in the midst of a ijrolonged drought, 
while the leaves were crisp, devastating the crops where not checked by the use of 
some i^oisonous compound. 

This leads me to note some suggestions upon the use of poisons and the proper mode 
of applying the same, based upon the correctness of the theory that the moth is now 
naturalized in the cotton region, as through these agencies this pest may be iu time 
annihilated and the planting interest saved an annual loss of thirty to forty millions 
of dollars. But this can only be accomplished by the combined effort of skill, labor, 
and capital aud the general use of a cheap and simple poisonous compound. 

From experiments which I have made of every destructive agent, I have found noth- 
ing so cheap or more effectual, ard with all so little likely to etiect injuriously the cot- 
ton-plant or the distribntor of the poison, as a mixture of the arseniate of soda and 
water in certain given proportions. 

This mixture is now prepared at the Soda Chemical Works under a patent issued to 
John D. Braman, in May, 1874. This preparation has been extensively used, and, where 
printed instructions were strictly followed, has never failed to kill the worm in brief 
time without any sensible injury to the plant or its fruit, and in no wise affecting 
those who ai^plied it, as has often been the complaint against Paris green. The pres- 
ent cost does not exceed 25 cents per acre, while the green, if genuine, will reach near 
$2 per acre. 

Considering the manifest advantages and the immense saving in the crops it is cer- 
tainly the duty of legislative powers (either Congress or the several State legislatures 
of the cottou-growing States) to devise some measure which will place both the poison- 
ous compound and some efiicient agent for its distribution upon the cotton wnthin the 
reach of every laborer engaged in its cultivation. Such a measure cannot fail in due 
time to eradicate this ravenous insect. 

There are many well-known devices for the extinction of the moth, the prolific 
mother of the cotton army worm, all of which, upon a limited scale, have proved more 
or less successful, but equally reciuiring capital to make a larger scope of experiment 
by the use of torches or lighted lamps placed in the cotton-fields, at suitable distances, 
with poisonous liquids to attract the moth. This view of the question seems to have 
attracted the special notice and observation of Professor Riley, under whose instruc- 
tions I have just concluded some experiments, which have been fully reported to him 
and are well worthy of farther trial at the proper season next year. I was well satisfied 
from the results of my experiments that a large portion of the mother moths may bo 
destroyed. 



358 REPORT UPON COTTON INSECTS. 

All theories discnssed in this report are valueless except as suggesting methods to 
the practical planter of checking the ravages of the cotton army worm. 
All of which are most respectfully submitted by 

WILLIAM J. JONES. 
Virginia Porsfx, Tex., 

November 8, 1878. 
Hon. William G. Le Due, 

Commissioner of Agriculture. 



REPORT OF PROF. J. E. WILLET, OF MACON, GA. 

THE COTTON-WOIilM. 
PAST HISTORY. 

1, 1 a, and 1 h. 

Mr. William Jones, Athens, Ga., now advanced in years, planted cotton in Liberty 
County, Georgia, from 1825 to 1865, and kept notes on the cctton-worm. He writes: 
" Cotton was introduced into Georgia, as a croi>, between 1790 and 1800." Correspond- 
ents in the older eastern counties give 1800 to 1810 as the date of the introduction of 
cotton into their counties. 

Mr. William Jones says: "The cotton- worm first made its appearance (in Liberty 
County) in 1804, and during the month of September the crojis were half eaten up, 
when a hurricane swept over the country and destroyed the worms." 

Mr. I. C. Plant, of Macon, Ga., and Dr. E. L. McTyre, of Thomasville, Ga., think 
they are transported from one country to another in cotton-seed. Mr. Plant married in 
Glynn County, Georgia, and has been familiar for years past with the best planters on 
the islands and on the Atlantic coast of Georgia. Mr. Plantstates that the father of Hon. 
James Hamilton Ccwper, of Saint Simon's Island, and Mr. Armstrong brought the first 
cotton-seed to Glynn County from the Bahamas, and that the cotton-worm was first 
observed after the second importation of seed, some seven years subsequent to the first in- 
troduction. Mr. Plant further states that ho has seen in an English pax)er that the 
cotton- worm first appeared in Egypt some years since, and just alter an importation of 
American cotton-seed. 

Dr. E. L. McTyre, of Thomasville, Ga.^ writes: "I settled in the province of San 
Paulo, Brazil, iu tho year 18GG, and remained there eight and a half years. The culti- 
vation of cotton was of recent date then, and they were planting their fourth crop 
when I arrived. Prior to the year 1863 there had been some cotton planted in the 
country, perhaps of an indigenous variety, but no one had ever observed a cotton- 
worm, and I believe they had never existed there. In 186"i the price of cotton ofi'ering 
great inducements to Brazilian farmers, they sought to procure seed, but none could be 
had, and I was informed the seed then being used was brought from New Orleans. 
The first year no caterpillar was seen, but after the second they commenced to eat the 
leaves, and had increased to such an extent that when I moved from there the culti- 
vation of cotton was nearly abandoned." 

The statements of Mr. Plant and of Dr. McTyre are interesting, and are worthy of 
further investigation. Our consular agents in Egypt and Brazil can inquire into the 
introduction of the cotton-worm into those countries, and can procure specimens show- 
ing whether the worm is Aletia argillacea or an allied native species. 



APPENDIX I — EEPOETS OF OBSERVERS. 



359 







b£ fl 


cj 


d 


E 


c 


^ 


n 


£ 


© 


■ C3 


bl 


tS 





CS 




c3 


1 


a 

o 

a 
o 
pi 

o 


1 ^ 

3 

1 ^ 


g« 

<o o 


O 

a 

oa 

IB 

a 
o 


c 

c 
s 
c 

£ 


^ 3 
in 

^- w 

'—1 C3 


'^ 


- M 3 C 

cSi_: oQai— , 


03 

3 3 
. 0) 


qp ^ 
^« ^ 

"a +J 0" 
1.2 3 

i^s a 

. - 3 « . 

' 3;t J .[I, 


CM 

o 

on 


i 




^1^ 




n 
P 


6 cep 




oTtS. 






0i ' 


Pi 


K 






c!a 


5 ^ 


Q Mo ^M 


J^a 


O) 

'^r 


XI 
















t/ 


D i 1 


; 
















a a 
















p 




• 


























iH 




"^ 


\ \ 


rH 
















^1 




a 

3 


<1 




3 

Ml 
--I 


13 

a 


:J 1 i^' 






in 
a 


05 


























bU I 




t-J 


® A 
11 










1 








\ 

. a 
• 3 
I'D 

■"a 






UO 

a 




00 


irfcfl 










h-! 












0) 


^ 


>^ 


3 


, •« 






o »n 


o 


lO 







. 


n om 


"1C5 
















rt m 


in 


(M 







• ai 


C^ m rH 


CO n 














o 


-2 








: 


2 
















in 


M 








1 















CO 








M 








I '^ 


<M 












° m 








b 


) 








4^ 
ft 




i 






bb^« 


S3 

"S E5 




1 


h ;4 
o a. 


•< 


S 


11 




C 
M 










^^^ 


<C O 






^^ 




^ 


,0 
a 1 


: : 


1 |l 


•^ ^ 




-S-^ft 


Qa 

if 




0. 


ae 




1 


II 


' 1 
< 










> 




"ti 5 


. s 


fcb Sib 






1 
a: 


© 0. 

mil. 


h 


' 1 


-( ft •: 
M < 


■ 3 


^ ■5< 




"3 a 




■^ 




UJ ce 


IT 






00 M 




tor- 




kl 


© 


f-- 


I-- 


t' -jr 


cc 


)> 






n (- 


-rp l> 






ce 


\^ 


X 


00 


oox 










00 a 


0. 








© 


o 




" oc 




ir~ 


t' 






00 




irf"5 


' 




p^ 


3 


IT 














S 


(N 






>3 


?H 05 


oc 








'i 






a 


00* "3'- 










"^ Is 




T- 


'^ 


Tf 


c 






"^ 


s i 


'"' r* 






> 


o S 








oc 





















'l" 


















T 


T 






^i 


pO 








c 










•^ 








a 2 










5 










s 








S a 


(30 


•J 




00 cc 


9 




6 ^ 


• (H 


00 


C 


ri. OC 









-g 
o S 






to p 






£ a^ 


• -v 


CO 


TT 


CD L" 






CO 


a 






a 




• 00 


00 


OC 


00 CC 






00 






rl rH 






_|2 1- 


;'-' 




■" 








'-' 


^1 












_2 
















1 2 








5 




T* -H 








c 








8-S 








< 




S 








< 








1 «« 


ir 






c 


c 




00 c 


• c 





■; 


c 


^ 


< m 


a n 


c 






c 










CO 






> cS 


2 ^ 
S p 














OD i 


• oc 


00 


OC 


ou a 


CO 3 


) 








^ 






T ■" 


;■" 


"^ 


\ 


" '" 


1-1 r- 


>> 


• ^S 














00 






•% 


= °t 


3 -W 

! 3 


a t^ 












c 












c 


> 


00 


^1 
























> ^ 


05 -1 










•< 












§< 


) -^ 


<1 




i> 


~ 


ih c 


?■ 


5. 


c 


= 


55 o? 


0? 


ft 5- 


s 


XJ © 


t 




CC W 






10 ^ 


M 14 


tH i-H C 









el's 





o 


o o 


o 











00 











HlS 




t* 


m " 


^ 




n n 


CJ-TI 


(JJ (N CJ 


OJ- 







c 


c 


« c 


IT 


C' 


m c 


n « 


n <nv 


coo- 


nf 


CO 






















: 


3 




























































































1 


















c 


; c 

, C 



1 S 






1 








H 






















rt 5 - 




E 








o 






















3 ^.z 




e 


3 






i 




















a 




















>^ 


O 


'■ 


I I 


! S? 


) a 


3 c- 




1 














i '^- 








i X 


1 ° ^ 


> 


s: 


fl 










E 


3 a 






p 


= ^ 


- !L 


5^ 


■ 'v- 


5 fi 


c 

< u 


2 


s 








1- 






L 


1 c 

3 K 


; 1 



7- t= f 

^ p 53 

3 O 

Geo 

O 5 3 



•" "= ^- 



f^ 
>, 



<u o ^ 

■2 5^ 



a 2 " 



o and ^ 

> en QJ t^ lJ 

t- p cart kS 



W 



e cs i» co" 



r-^s 



cd33 op^ a' 

CO O 5 -< ' 

_ .3 ® o . ^ 

>> cT-S "g ^ +i i^'" '^^ £ 

■s S-a lis '^S'= a 
o Kr- 3 « ft^.-a ^- 
«.2 9o t^ ^^ p tj 

•3 r- § O ;-..S rr bt ?^ 

§§ifi^fe3'„-^'§ 

-s ??^ c a^ » a 
<B o-g =« o- J o 
fc cs o "3" c* of 3 
S«^" --a;?-Sa 

oj o - S 2 ■= ft •- 

en a oS CC 2m'*a 
,-g<a'-i*^f-,o-cSpj 

i:-t=^ 3 a g?*^-;: 

^^ -'To® 



°'^So§g-=3 t- 

«.a o g^oggft 

^aaSSg&^i^ 
->-SSo2t;£-sP 

.2©§='g'gsg§ 

o— "•^ -o'-^^'^a 
tf;a33t.^zi"rt=s 

n ==•- S ^J u o en 

3 S:'g « ? g E^5 
2ga S: o^ojg 

r'l: . „- .0 . . . 

c-i S'-' ^5) ^co-^in 

W 5 -5 



1 ^? p3 



360 REPORT UPON COTTON INSECTS. 

2, 2a, i, c, d, e, f. 

Most correspondents agree that warm, wet summers favor the multiplication of the 
worm ; some specify that in hot, dry weather the young larvae die soon after hatching. 
As to the effect of winters, several correspondents think that mild winters favor the 
worms. Major Gamble, of Tallahassee, Fla., who has planted cotton in Middle and 
Southern Florida from 1827 to the present time, says, "showery weather in June and 
July after a mild winter" is favorable to the insect, and that " cold weather is injuri- 
ous in proportion to its rigor." Per contra, Mr. Jones, who planted in Liberty County, 
Geor-^ia, from 1825 to 1865, writes : " The years preceding the most destructive appear- 
ance of the worm were characterized by warm summers and severe winters." On 2a 
he says : " I have seen the worm iu both wet and dry seasons, and the only difference 
noted was that in wet seasons the growth of the cotton was more luxuriant, and the 
worms had more to feed on." 

3. 

Losses are stated very differently, as seen from the table. They are doubtless differ- 
ent in different sections, being greater where the worms come oftener and iu greater 
force. Twenty-live per cent, for destructive years is probably a fair mean. 

4. 

Capt. L. S. McSwain commenced careful meteorological observations in Thomasville, 
Ga., in April last, and gave me a record of winds, as follows : April, S. E. ; May, S. E. ; 
June, S. W., and July, S. The United States Signal Office has regular stations at Sa- 
vannah and Augusta, Ga., and Prof. F. J. M. Daly, of Pio Nono College, Macon, Ga., 
reports also to the same office. These reports will give the department full infoima- 
tion on the winds. 

Correspondents agree almost unanimously that the worms do not eat on any partic- 
ular side of the field ; if at the sides, always with reference to the condition of the crop. 
Most commonly they appear in the body of the field, in low, rich places, or in luxuriant 
cotton at any point. My own observation this year corresponds with this statement. 

The general testimony of correspondents is that the worm- feeds only on cotton. 
One says he has known them to eat corn-blades and crab-grass ; another told niethey 
attacked his sugar-cane. Per contra, I confined them twenty-four hours on the leaves 
of sugar-cane and of okra, but they disturbed neither. Mr. Jones has likewise confined 
them on various species of hihiscus, allied to cotton, but they ate none of them. 

5, a, h, c, d, e, f, g. 

Several report seeing moths in February, but there is no certainty that they were 
the cotton-moth. Major Gamble, Leon County, Florida, reports seeing moths in the 
cotton-field the latter part of May. Mr. William Jones reports from his notes, first 
worms in Liberty County, Georgia, as follows: "The worms first made their appear- 
ance in September, 1804, then not again until late in September, 1825; then September 
5, 1840; September ID, 184:i; August 18, 184G; August 2(5, increasing largely ; Septem- 
her 14, fields almost stripped ; by the lUth the fields were completely stripped. Au- 
gust 20, 1847 ; August 18, 18.>2, these two years no harm done. I stopped planting in 
1865; I have kept no notes since." Major Gamble gives from his notes, first worms in 
Leon County, Florida, 1869, May, 12; 1872, June2U; 187.5, May 24 ; 1874, July 2; 1875, 
June 24 , 1877, June 19 ;1878, June 15. He also says: " Previous to the introduction of 
new improved seeds they were observed about the middle of August. Referring to 
an old journal which I have by me, and kept by me, I discovered a few August 11, 
1841. The winter of 1841 was cold, and in 1842 there was no damage to the crop by 
the caternillar. The winter of 1842, 1 find, was mild and drier, the first frost, November 
10, killing the cotton, which was then green. July 15, 1843, 1 find a caterpillar chrys- 
alis—the crop of this year was destroyed." Mr. Jones planted before this early ma- 
turing of cotton, and his dates would now be earlier. 

Correspondents usually report three broods. The larvae draw together the flexible 
green leaves of any plant in the cotton-fields to form a resting place for pupae. 

Most correspondents make no mention of the chrysalis iu winter. Hon. J. B. Jones, 
Burke County, says: " They are to be seen in the chrysalis state after frost, I think, 
but do not believe they survive the winter." Mr. William Jones, Li))erty County, 
says : " I have collected a number of chrysalides and hung them in a northern exposure, 
where they survived a temperature of 12° Fahr. After this I left home and Avatched 
them no longer." Mr. William Denham, Putnam County, reports finding chrysalides 
alive under the bark of trees after frost, and Mr. Spencer, Mitchell County, finding 
some in an old stump. There is no certainty that they were the pupae of Aletia. 
Some farmers believe, from seeing brown pupae plowed up in winter and spring, 
that the larvte of Aletia may accidently fall into cracks or holes in the earth and there 
pupate and spend the winter. 

6. 

Correspondents report the natural enemies as birds (specifying bluebirds, rice-birds, 
and quails), chickens, turkeys, wild and tame; dogs, hogs, ants, and wasps. The two 



APPENDIX I REPORTS OF OBSERVERS. 361 

last visit the plants, it is probable, the ants in search of spiders, and the wasps to suck 
the sweets secreted by the leaf and boll glands. I have seen honey-bees and siiecies 
of wasps thus busily engaged from day to day. 

7. 

No great attention has been paid to the destruction of the moths, lavae, and chry- 
salides in interior Georgia, inasmuch as the insect wasnot very destructive till some ten 
years since. On the coast and islands it was the custom of iilanters, many years since, • 
to burn all stubble in the cottou-tields during the winter. 

In 1872-'73 the most determined attempts at destruction were made in Southern 
Georgia with lamps and molasses for the moths. Paris green and arsenious acid for 
the larvae, and hand-picking for the larvae and chrysalides. As samples, Capt. John 
A. Cobb, Sumter County, writes: "I tried the caterpillar lamp, burnt over 100 of 
them for several weeks, spent several hundred dollars in the experiment, but do not 
believe it paid. If all my neighbors had lased the lamps the result might have been 
different. But I believe my lamps attracted more flies from the adjacent Gelds than 
were killed by them." Mr. K. Burton, of Schley County, writes : " I have used plates 
of sweetened water, tires on stumps, lanterns, caught and destroyed thousands (hav- 
ing found .50 millers in one plate of molasses and water) with but poor success." 

Paris green mixed with flour and slippery-elm bark and arsenious acid in water, one 
pound to the barrel, were used in Dougherty and adjoining counties in 1873. Tbe 
former was sifted and the latter spriniiled by hand on the cotton-plant. Maj. R. J. 
Bacon, of Albany, says he thereby saved a large crop of cotton, but thinks the expense 
about equaled the value of cotton saved. 

Rev. C. S. Goulden,of Thomasville, Ga., employed women and children to collect the 
caterpillars. They kept the plants free from worms, but the expense about equaled 
the saving. 

Capt. G. M. Bacon, Mitchell County, encouraged the gathering of the chrysalides by 
paying so much per quart for the pupae, free from all leaves and trash. He thus se- 
cured and destroyed the very large quantity of 9 bushels .ind "27 quarts. He doubts 
whether there was any pecuniary gain. 

J. E. WILLET. 

Macon, Ga. 



REPORT OF WILLIAM TRELEASE, OF BROOKLYN, N. Y. 

HABITS AND NATURAL HISTORY. 

Belonging to the Lepidoptera, Jletia has a complete metamorphosis, passing through 
four well-marked states of development, viz, egg, larva or caterpillar, pupa or cbrys- 
alis. and imago or moth. These will be considered somewhat in detail in the order in 
which they have been mentioned, and this discussion will then be followed by some 
general remarks concerning the number of broods which occur each year, and the way 
in whicli the species is perpetuated from one year to another. 

In the section of Alabama where I studied Aliiia, I found comparatively few planters 
who knew the appearance of the egg from which the cotton caterpillar is hatched. 
Most of them readily admitted that the reason they had never seen the egg was be- 
cause they had never looked for it ; but occasionally one was found who emphatically 
stated that the '• cotton fly " never lays eggs, but deposits little caterpillars on the leaf, 
" for," he would say, " I've been about cotton a good many years, and I never saw an 
egg, but I have seen thousands of little caterpillars." Negative evidence was all-cou- 
vTucing to such men ; and their signs of disgust, when told that the men who had paid 
most attention to this subject always found eggs, were very amusing. 

To find these eggs when there are few of them — as in the early part of the season — 
is by no means an easy task ; for, until the species becomes largely represented, there 
is rarely more than one egg to a leaf, and perhaps only one leaf on every ninth or tenth 
plant bears even one egg. When, however, the moths, or " flies," as planters call them, 
are seen in large numbers about the cotton-fields, eggs may be found on nearly every 
plant, the fewest being on stunted plants which have ceased active growth. These 
e"-gs are, to the naked eye, depressed hemispheres, about as large as a small pin-head, 
their flat surface being next the leaf. They are of a bluish-green or copperas color, 
and this alone would make it easy to distinguish them from other eggs or plant-lice, 
even were it not for their peculiar form. As a rule, planters see the first signs of the 
caterpillar on the upper, tender leaves of a cotton-plant, and, without looking for the 
eggs from which the larvae that they see were hatched, they conclude at once that the 
eggs are laid almost exclusively on those leaves ; but, as we shall see, this is not the 
case. In July, when the eggs were being laid from which the fourth brood of larvae 
should emerge, I noticed that most of those that I found were deposited singly on the 
lower surface of rather tender leaves near the top of the plant or the ends of the 



362 



KEPORT UPON COTTON INSECTS. 



branches, thougli not on the very yonng leaves. Late iu August, when the eggs for 
the fifth brood were being laid, I found from one to nine eggs on some leaves, while 
other leaves bore none ; and those which bore eggs were, as a rule, large leaves near 
the middle of the plant. The average number on one of these leaves I judged to be 
about four. To get more accurate results I examined, leaf by leaf, three plants, with 
the results given below, and these partially confirm my previous observations. In 
these tables the branches are counted from below upward, and the leaves, from the 
Jjase of a branch to its tip. Only unhatched eggs were couuted, and such larvae as 
were too small to have been boru on a different leaf from that on which they were 
found. 

Plant Xo. 1, August 28, 1879. 









o 








6 


Branch. 


<«■ 


x 


a 


Branch. 




n 


n 






to 
















te 


cS 




o 




C3 




H-1 


H 


h) 




Hi 


W 


1-1 




Number 








Mimber 








1 








Kumber 8 


•> 


3 


2 


2 


1 
■i 










9 


3 
1 


4 
5 












3 










3 








3 


1 

1 

2 




1 

2 

I 




1 



1 


10 


3 

1 
2 
3 


3 

5 












4 














3 


1 







4 


I 





5 


1 
2 


1 








11 


1 

2 


















3 










3 










4 
5 










12 


1 
2 
















6 


1 
o 


3 

1 


1 




13 


1 

2 


















3 


1 





Sta'.k 


1* 


1 





7 


1 
2 


1 



1 






.~t 


1 














3 


1 







4\ 








8 


1 


9 







5t 













' A medium-sized leaf. 



t A small leaf. 



J A very small leaf. 



This was a spindling plant about four feet high. The leaves marked No. 1, on 
branches 8, 9, 10, 11, r2, and 13, really belonged to the stem, the branches being in 
their axils, and they were the largest leaves on the plant. The leaves marked as be- 
longing to the stalk were situated above the highest branch. 

An esamiuatiou of this table will show that the eggs were distributed according to 
branches as follows : 

No. 1. 







6 






<6 


Branch. 


00 


cS 


Branch. 








Ml 






M 




to 


c« 




it 






f^ 


1-3 




H 


lA 






1 
4 
1 





1 
1 



Number 8 


IC 

8 
6 


(1 


2 


2 


!) 

10 





3 





4 


11 





5 


12 





6 


5 

2 


1 
1 


13 

Stalk above 13 



2 





7 





















•tf 










i 


II 










^A 


w 


The bottom 


14 

14 
14 


8 


The middle 


40 




3 


Total . 


42 


.51 













APPENDIX I REPORTS OF OBSERVERS. 

Plant Xo. 2, August 28, 1879. 



363 



Branch. 



Number 1 . 



Number 
1— 
'2 + 
3— 

4 + 

5 + 
6± 
7± 
8± 
9— 
1 = 
2— 
3— 
4— 
5— 
1= 
2— 
3— 
4— 
5— 
6= 
7i 

1 = 

2 + 
3= 
4i 
5± 
C_ 
1= 
2± 
3± 
4± 
1± 
2± 
3± 
4 + 
5_ 
6= 
1± 
2+ 
3± 
4± 
5^ 
1± 
2_ 
3± 
4-fc 
5± 
6± 
7- 
8= 
]± 
2± 
3± 
4± 
5± 

































1 











2 
























































1 


1 





2 











1 





















































1 











2 











1 





























1 











2 


1 








3 





1 





1 











3 



































1 






























Branch. 



Number 10. 



18. 



Stalk. 



Buds. 



Number 
1± 
2± 
3± 
4± 
5— 
1± 
2± 
3± 
4± 
5— 
6= 

It 
3+ 
4± 
5= 
6± 
7± 
8- 

1+ 

2= 

3+ 

4± 

5± 

6- 

7= 

1 + 

2- 

3+ 

4± 

5— 

6— 

1 + 

2± 

3± 

4— 

5= 

1+ 

2± 

3- 

1 + 

2± 

3— 

4= 

1 + 

2± 

3= 

1 + 

2— 

3= 

1± 

2— 

3± 

4= 



1 
2 
4 
1 


1 




3 

2 

1 

1 
1 


3 
3 
1 












1 


2 




















Examining this table, we find the following distribution i 



364 



REPORT UPON COTTON INSECTS. 
No. 2. 



Branch. 


> 


til 


t-1 


Branch. 


CI 

1-! 


X 
(Ml 


i 
1-1 




9 
5 

G 
4 
G 
5 
8 
7 
5 
6 
8 
7 
G 
5 
3 
4 
3 


3 

4 

1 
3 
3 
8 
1 
8 
1 
8 
7 

1 








1 





1 







1 










3 
4 









2 


Stalk 





3 


Total 




4 


111 


50 


3 


5 




















7 








9 






rs 


10 

11 


gg 


1-2. 


tts 


13 


bi.3 


14 


15 


Bottom third 


37 
37 
37 




16 


12 


17 


MuliUo third 


28 


18 


Upper third 


13 









KoTE —In Table 2 + indicates a large leaf ; ± , a medium-sized leaf ; — a small leaf ; and = a very 
small one. 

Plant No. 3, Septeniber 1, 1879. 

















4-1 






























■=i'*i 




SJ 






^^ 




2 


Branch. 


. 


ug 


n 


Cj 


Branch. 




tig 


05 


t 








bO 








n-5 




(H 








Ml 


c« 




4) 










h) 


k! 


1^ 


I-! 




I-! 


(-1 


W 


1-1 




No. 


jMcfte*. 






Number 6 


No. 


Inches. 






Number 1 


1 


3i 










2 


3 










2 


■il 










3 


5i 










3 


4J 


1 







4 


2i 










4 


2i 










5 


4 


1 







5 


44 










6 


."i.V 










C 


5i 










7 


n 










7 


4J 





1 




8 


5 


1 







8 


l| 










9 


5i 


1 





Number 2 


1 


4? 








Number 7 


1 


4 










S 


2i 










2 


5 


1 







3 


3a 










3 


5 








Number 3 


1 


5 










4 


4 










2 


4i 


1 







5 


^ 


1 


2 




3 


3J 










C 


5 










4 


4.i 


1 


2 




7 


5 










5 


5 










8 


ii 










6 


'i\ 










;i 


24 










7 


5-i 










10 


6 










8 


3' 










11 


4 


1 







9 


44 


3 


1 




12 


6 


1 







10 


4J 










13 


4i 










11 


li 










14 


n 








Number 4 


1 


5 


1 







15 


6 










2 


2i 





2 




16 


21 










3 


5J 





1 




17 


3i 


1 







4 


2A 










18 












5 


6 


2 







19 


1 










G 


3i 










20 


5.V 










7 


2i 


1 





Numbers 


1 


6i 


1 


1 




8 


4 


2 







2 


3 










9 


5 


2 


1 




3 


G 










10 


5^ 


1 


1 




4 


2i 


1 







11 


4^ 










5 


5 





2 


Numbers 


1 


3| 


1 







6 


3i 


1 


1 




2 


5 





2 




7 


5 





1 




3 


4J 





1 




8 


3 










4 


3i 


1 







9 


6 


2 







5 


5 


1 


2 




10 


5i 


1 







6 


24 





1 




11 


5^ 


2 


1 




7 


5i 










12 


4 





1 




8 


5 








Number 9 


1 


7 










9 


44 










2 


4 


2 


2 


Number G 


1 


5i 










3 


4 









APPENDIX I REPORTS OF OBSERVERS. 

Plant iVb. 3 — Continued. 



365 







4-1 

o 










o 






Branch. 


CM 




« 




Branch. 




tsl 




a! 




S 


O— 1 




t4 




OS 


p-^ 


ts 


£ 










a 








to 






1-1 


lA 


W 


t-1 




1-1 


I-! 


W 


>-) 




lS-0. 


Inches. 








No. 


Inches. 






Number 9 


4 


3h 


2 





Number 13 


11 


2 










5 


ek 








Number 14 


1 


H 





1 




6 


2 










2 


4a 










7 


5^ 


1 







3 


S2 










8 


3 


1 







4 


6 


2 







9 


4i 










5 


6i 


1 





Number 10 


1 


^ 










6 


5.i 


3 


1 




2 


6 










7 


5| 










3 


3 








Number 15 


1 


5} 


1 







4 


33 





2 




2 


31 


3 







5 


5J 


1 







3 


5 


1 







6 


5* 










4 


5 










7 


5i 


1 







5 


3* 










8 


3 








Number 16 


1 


7 








Number 11 


1 


u 


1 







2 


6 


2 


1 




2 


8i 










3 , 


5J 










3 


5J 










4 


5J 


2 







4 


5 










5 


•IJ 










5 


1* 










6 


H 










6 


C 


1 





Number 17 


1 


Gi 





1 




7 


5J 





1 




2 


5.V 










8 


5* 










3 


H 










9 


U 










4 


3 










10 


4i 


1 





Number 18 


1 


7 








Number 12 


1 


7 


1 







o 


2 










2 


3i 










3 


3h 










3 


4 


I 







4 


6 










4 


4i 










5 


fi 










5 


5i 


1 







6 


5 










6 


6 


1 







7 


2* 










7 


5 


1 





Number 19 


1 


6J 








Number 13 


1 


7 










2 


2i 










2 


2J 










3 


5i 










3 


4i 










4 


H 





1 




4 


41 










5 


3J 





1 




5 


5i 








Number 20 


1 


u 










6 


5i 










2 


21 










7 


2 










3 


:'i 


1 







8 


6^ 








Number 21 


1 


5J 










9 


6 










2 


^2 










10 


4| 










3 


2J 









Arranging these by branches, as was done with the other tables, we find the follow- 
ing distribution : 

No. 3. 



Branch. 


m 
> 

1-1 


So 


i 


Branch. 


1 




i 




8 
3 
11 
11 

9 
9 

20 

12 
9 
8 

10 
7 

11 
7 
5 
6 
4 
7 


i 


5 
9 
3 
3 
5 
8 
6 
2 
3 
5 

6 

4 




2 

3 
5 
6 

2 
7 
2 

1 


2 

1 
1 



Number 19 


5 
3 
3 


e 

1 




2 


2 


20 

21 





3 





4 


Total 




5 


168 


66 


36 


6 










7 










g 




9 




V 


nS 


10 


go 


11 


« 


12 


tti; 


13 


Mi3 


14 


15 


Bottom third 


56 
56 
56 




16 . . .. 


41 


17 


Middle third 


35 


18 




26 









366 REPORT UPON COTTON INSECTS. 

In all of these tables care was taken to count only those larvas which were so small 
that there was every probability of their having been hatched on the leaf where 
they were found ; and the tables were prepared at the time when most of the eggs for 
the fifth brood had been laid and a few were beginning to hatch. 

From an examination of the first table it appears that on this plant there were three 
and a half times as many eggs (including the young larvae) on the middle third of the 
plant as on the other two-thirds combined. 

The second table shows that the eggs were more evenly distributed on the second 
plant examined than on the first, yet the middle third bore more than the rest of the 
plant. 

It may be seen from the third table that on the third plant the distribution of the 
eggs was still more uniform, and here the number on the middle third is intermediate 
between that on the other two-thirds, the larger number being found on the bottom 
third of the plant. 

Averaging the three tables, we find that there are 20 eggs for the bottom third of a 
plant, 34 for the middle third, and 14 for the upper third. The middle third averages 
as many as the other two-thirds taken together. 

On the first plant those leaves which bore eggs at all averaged 2.7 per leaf, on the sec- 
ond plant 1.7, and on the third plant 1.5. On the three plants the average number is 
1.9 eggs per leaf. This, I think, may fairly be taken as representing the iibuudance 
of eggs in the section where my observations were made, for the first plant was an 
average representative of the field in which it grew, and the caterpillars were very 
abundant there. The second was taken from a field where there were fewer worms, 
and the third was taken from a field where there were very few caterpillars before the 
fifth brood appeared, so that the eggs counted were nearly all deposited by moths 
which had come from other fields. 

Oviposition being dependent upon the instinct of a living animal and not upon nat- 
ural laws, figures like these will not enable us to predict where any individual moth 
will lay its eggs ; but as instinct is pretty constant with insects they may be taken as 
showing what commonly occurs. 

Of several hundred eggs that I examined, probably not a half a dozen were laid on 
any part of the cotton-plant but the lower surface of the leaves. Most of these were 
deposited on the lamella of the blade, a very few on the veins. Two or three were 
found on the upper surface of the leaves ; one was seen on the peduncle or flower- 
stalk, about one-eighth of an inch from the base of the flower ; and two were noticed 
on the outer surface of the involucre around the flower. As a rule they were not laid 
close together, yet once or twice two were found almost in contact. 

Under natural conditions, late in summer, I found that the eggs of Alctia usually 
hatch iu the course of the first four days after being deposited ; but the time required 
seems to vary according to the temperature, as 1 found that some hatched in about two 
days, while others that were taken into the house required upwards of a week, and a 
considerable number blacken and never hatch, from some cause that I was unable to de- 
termine. After the exclusion of the larva the eggshell is of a gray or whitish color, and 
sometimes remains adhering to the leaf for a considerable length of time ; after it has 
been removed there is often a faint impression to be seen where it was attached to the 
leaf. 

When first hatched, the young larva feeds on the parenchyma of that surface of the 
leaf on which it chances to find itself, and it is not till it is from two to four days old 
that it perforates the cuticle on the other .side of the leaf. The first direct signs of 
the caterpillar are, therefore, transparent places of small extent and more or less 
rounded outline, on the larger leaves of the plant. Why this epidermis should be left 
uneaten I am unable to say ; but as the larvae are usually hatched on the lower sur- 
face of the leaf it appears that this habit may be due to an instinct teaching the larva 
to preserve this screen against the rays of the sun while it is very young. That it is 
an instinct seems to be shown by the fact that larvae hatched on the upper surface of 
the leaf, in confinement, ate the parenchyma from this surface and left the cuticle 
untouched on the lower side. Though small places are often found where young 
larvae have eaten the lower side of the leaf without perforating the epidermis, while 
the larvae cannot be found, I have no evidence that a caterpillar ever leaves the leaf 
on which it was born till it is old enough to eat through it ; and in the cases just men- 
tioned I believe that the larvae have been removed l)y some predaceous auimal. 

Having reached the age of three or four days, many larvae go from the tough leaves, 
where they have passed the early part of their existence, to the tender leaves near the 
top of the plant and the ends of the branches, and, eating the substance of these leaves 
from between the veins, which are left intact, they honeycomb or rag them, and this 
is generally the first sign of their presence that is noticed by planters, though when 
they are sufficiently numerous to make this honeycombing very noticeable a jjeculiar 
odor is perceived in the cotton-field, which seems to be due not only to the crushing of 
the leaves by the mandibles of the caterpillars, but to the large quantity of excre- 
ment which they void, and which, from the raiiid iiassage of their food through their 



APPENDIX I REPORTS OF OBSERVERS. 367 

bodies, is only partially digested. When there are not very many caterpillars they do 
no more than to partly eat these upper leaves, excepting early in the season, when few 
leaves are expanded and the cotton-plants are very small, when a single larva has 
then been known to completely defoliate two or three plants. When more almndaut 
they eat all of the parenchyma from between the veins of these leaves and rag the 
lower leaves to a certain extent ; and when very numerous they reduce every leaf on 
the plant to a mere skeleton, consisting of the stronger veins, besides eating up the 
flowers and flower buds* and the involucres or "squares" from about the bolls, 
while frequently they eat large irregular holes in the half -grown bolls, and sometimes 
go so far as to gnaw the bark from the stem of the plant. 

When there are enough caterpillars to eat the entire foliage from a plant those 
which are not full grown migrate in search of food on other plants, while those already 
grown seek some kind of leaves in which to transform to pupae. Thus it happens that 
after a large field has been eaten out one may see thousands of larvae of all sizes crawl- 
ing in every direction over the ground. At night most of these larvae ascend the cot- 
ton-plants near which tbey chance to be, and remain quiet till the next day, when 
their search is renewed. This is the only marching that I observed, t 

The natural food of Alciia larvae appears to be only the leaves of the cotton-plant, 
at least in this country. Though they were seen to eat bracts, calyx, corolla, stamens, 
and pistils of the cotton-flowers, as well as the walls of the boll and the half-grown 
seeds which it contained, and even the bark of the plant, as stated above, they were 
never seen to feed upon any other plant. Larvae of various sizes were several times 
transferred from cotton to three other malvaceous plants, but they remained on them 
a very short time, and did not attempt to eat their leaves. Confined in breeding jars 
with leaves of these plants they preferred starving to feeding upon the food given 
them ; and the only time that I ever saw one attempt to eat anything but parts of the 
cotton-plant was when one of these ate a very little parenchyma from the lower sur- 
face of an okra leaf. 

A strange peculiarity of this species is the variation in color which occurs in its dif- 
ferent broods of larvae— thus: up to the middle of July no larvae were found which 
were not of a light green color ; but of what the planters call the " first crop " in July 
I found a small percentage to have black or dark brown dorsal stripes. Of the " sec- 
ond crop," in August, about one-half were dark striped, some of them possessing lat- 
eral stripes, so that they appeared almost entirely black; and by far the greater part 
of the " third crop," in September, were very dark. Several larvae, of next to the last 
brood, were reared from the egg in dark boxes in the house, so that the only light 
which they received was once or twice a day, when their boxes were opened a few 
minutes to change their food leaves. At first they were green, though with a cloudy 
appearance ; but as they grew older they became striped with black, so as to resemble 
the darkest larvae of the preceding brood. This shows that the direct action of light 
is not needed to produce this color change, and that it is a progressive change, keeping 
pace with the growth of the larvae. What its physiological importance is 1 am unable 
to say.t 

*In August, when the fourth brood of larvae were at work, I saw many of them eating both the 
petals of flowers and the entire contents of unopened flower buds, though there were plenty of leaves 
still remaining on the plants. 

tin talking with planters I find that many of them apply the name " army-worm " to this species 
in seasons when its later broods appear in great numbers in places where no signs of the earlier broods 
have been seen. Their numbers are sometimes so large that two or three days suffice for them to stiip 
the foliage from thousands of acres of cotton where no signs of the worm bad been previously noticed. 
When there are enough of them to do that there would be a suiBcient number crossing the roids 
about the field to give the impression of an army in motion, though there might be no system to their 

+ Souie"facts bearing on this subject of larval coloration have been collected by Sir John Lubbock 
(Scientific Lectures, London, 1879), but thev do not suggest to me an explanation of the present case. 
He says, (page 49): "In various genera wo fliid black caterpillars, which are of course very conspicuous, 
and, so far as I know, not distasteful to birds. In such rases, hon-ever. it will be found that they are 
covered with hairs or spines, which protect them from most birds. In these cases the bold, dark color 
may be an advantage, tv rendering the hair more conspicuous." Though Alrtia is somewhat hairy. I 
doiibt if its coating is much of a protection, and I did not notice that the hairs were more conspicuous 
on the black than on the green larvas ; on the contrary, I believe that they are less apparent as seen 
at'ainst the black background of the insect's bodv. Sir .John finds that of sixtysix British butterfly 
larvae, " ten are black ; and, as we have already seen, all these are spiny or hairy." When speaking 
of the linear markings of caterpillars (page 45),' he says: " It is important that there should be certain 
marks to divert the eve from the outlines of the bodv. This is eflected. and much protection given, by 
longitudinal lines, which accordingly are found on a great many caterpillars. These lines, both in color 
and thickness, much resemble .soine of the hues on leaves (especially those, for instance, of grasses) 
and also the streaks of shadow which occur among foliage. If, however, this be the explanation of 
them then thev ought to be wanting, as a general rule, in very small caterpillars, and to prevail most 
among those which feed on or among grasses. * ' * But you will find that the smallest caterpillars 
rarely possess these white streaks. As regards the second point also, the streaks are generally waiit- 
iu"- ill caterpillars which feed on large-leaved plants. • * * In fact we may say, as a general rule,_ 
that these longitudinal streaks only occur on caterpillars which live on or among narrow-leaved pl;-.nt.s. 

As I have stated, both the jiroduction of the linear marks and the change in the ground color mAletia 
are progressive as the larvae increases in size and age, but so far as I know these larvae never feed on 



368 EEPORT UPON COTTON INSECTS. 

When resting upon the leaf, or feeding, the larvae are often very restless. When 
disturbed, the smaller ones allow themselves to drop from the leaf, first taking the 
jirecaution to attach a silken thread to it so that they can arrest their descent or as- 
cend at will. The older larvae, under similar circumstances, hold the posterior half of 
their bodies to the leaf by means of their prologs, while they quickly sway the ante- 
rior half from side to side. If further disturbed — or sometimes even at the first — they 
throw their bodies from the leaf, alighting on a lower leaf in many cases, but some- 
times falling to the ground. The young larva runs away from its enemy ; the older 
one tries to frighten him at first, but, failing in this, runs away afterward. It is in- 
teresting to notice that while larvae often escape from winged enemies such as the 
■wasps, by exercising this saltatory power, they often eusure their quick destructioir 
by using this same power when attacked by ants, for when once the ants have got a 
larvae that they are attacking on the ground his fate is certain. 

In feeding, I find that the larvae rest either on the upper or lower surface of the 
leaf, but more frequently on the latter. They have been found on the upper surface 
eating ravenously, though exposed to the rays of the midday sun, when the laud in 
which the cotton grew was so heated that caterpillars which fell from the plant onto 
it were killed by the heat in a few minutes; but as a general thing they seem to eat 
most early in the morning and late in the afternoon. A few have been seen eating 
after dark, but when examined during the night most of them appeared to be lying 
quietly on the leaves. 

When about twelve days old, the larva of Aletia draws a leaf about its body, fasten- 
ing it with a yellowish silk spun from near its mouth. This process is known to plant- 
ers as " webbing up." In the course of the next twenty-four hours its body shortens 
and increases in diameter, assuming a somewhat fusiform shape ; those parts which 
were light green become bluish or of a copperas color ; and finally it sheds its skin and 
becomes a pupa. This is at first invested in a delicate green membrane, but in a few 
hours its color begins to change to a brown, which sometimes becomes so deep as to ap- 
pear almost black ; and this change in color is attended by a toughening and hardening 
of its body wall. When a larva has webbed up in a leaf on the cotton plant it often 
happens that other larvae eat the leaf from about it, and if there were not some special 
provision the pupa would then fall to the ground. But nature has provided for such 
a contingency by giving it a set of hooks at its sharp or posterior extremity, and these, 
catching in its web, anchor it to the plant. Still, when thus exposed, the pupae must 
sutler more from their natural enemies, and especially birds, than when concealed by a 
leaf; hence, probably, the instinct which prompts many larvae to leave the plant on 
Avhich they had fed and web up in the leaves of the cow-pea, morning-glory, grass, or 
other plants growing in the cotton-field, while there may be plenty of uneaten leaves 
on the plants which they desert. In July and August I found that the pupa state 
lasted usually about ten days, though quite often it would reach fifteen, seeming to be 
influenced by the temperature. At the end of this time the skin of the pupa is rup- 
tured, and through the opening thus formed the moth emerges. Though neither eat- 
ing nor possessing the power of locomotion, the pupa of .-llet'ia can vibrato its body 
rapidly as it is suspended from its web by its anal hooks after the leaf has been eaten 
from about it; and this, like the similar motion of the larva, probably serves to 
frighten away some of its enemies. 

When the moth emerges from the pupa shell, its wings are wet and useless, and if 
it be then approached it can escape only by running, aided by a sort of hopping, in 
which its wings assist it a little. But in a short time the superabundant fluid dries 
from the wings, and they assume the form characteristic of the perfect insect, and are 
then used in flight. How long the moths live when unconfiued I have no means of 
knowing, but in breeding jars I have found that those of the third and fourth broods 
die within five days after their exclusion from the pupa. 

Both larvae and pupae being sexually imperfect, the duty of reproducing the species 
devolves upon the moths ; and these consist of males and females, which copulate, the 
females lay their eggs, and all die soon after. I could not determine how soon after 
their exclusion these moths usually copulate, and only once did I see anything that 
looked like coition, while even then what I observed may not have been copulation. 
Tlie facts are as follows : While watching a large number of moths collected about a 
jujube-tree, on the fruit of which they feed, and which I had illuminated by a lantern 
hung on one of the branches, I often saw one moth dart at another in its flight, hover 
over it, and appear to come in contact with it, the whole lasting only a second or two, 
after which they separated and flew away in different directions. In my breeding- 
jars, when kept supplied with fresh cotton-leaves, the female moths began ovipositioa 

anything but the cotton-plant, the leaves of which are broad and not linear like those of jirassea. Fi- 
nally, "as Weissmanu points out, wo may learn another very interesting fact from those caterpilhira. 
Tbey leave the egg, as \vo have seen, a plain green, like so many other caterpillars, an<l grinliially 
acquire a succession of markiugs. The young l.arvae. in fact, represents an old form, and the species, 
in the lapse of ages, has gone through the stage which each individual now passes through in a few 
weeks. Thus, then, the individual lite of certain caterpillars gives us a clew to the history of the spe- 
cies in past ages." 



APPENDIX I REPORTS OF OBSERVERS. 369 

some time during the second day after their exclusion ; but I do not know whether 
they begin sooner or later when uncontined. They were only seen laying their eggs 
once or twice, and this was done in a very interrupted manner, for tliey t're(iuen"Tv 
tiew from leaf to leaf and from plant to X)lant, each moth depositing but a single eg"' 
on a leaf, while frequently they would stop to feed on the nectar secreted by the cot^ 
ton -plant. 

Like many lepidopterous insects, these moths feed upon nectar and the juices of 
fruits. Of the first-mentioned substance, nectar, by far the largest quantity, is elabo- 
rated by glands situated in the flowers of many pbaenogamous plants, and tbero are com- 
liaratively few plants which possess nectar glands situated outsido of the floral envel- 
opes; yet I nev^er saw au Aletia moth visit a flower for nectar, while scores of tbem 
have been seen to feed upon the estrafloral nectar of the following plants: l,tho 
cotton-plant ((5os6v/^i«7» herhaceum); 2, the cow-pea; 3, the larger coti'ee-weed (CVw.sia 
occklciitalis). 

Tbe cotton-plant possesses extrafloral glands on the midrib and often on two of the 
lateral vt^ins on the under-surface of each of its leaves, as well as on the onthide of 
each of the bracts forming the involucre or square, and at the bottom of the calyx 
alternating with these bracts, in the flowers produced later in the seasf)n. These glands 
appear as shallow pits, and usually contain a drop of a clear, somewhat viscid, sweet 
fluid, the nectar. When feeding u])on this I found that the moths usually rested on 
their feet, having their wings held horizontally over their backs, as was coaimouly the 
case when they were at rest. In some few instances they merely balanced themselves 
before the bract from the gland of which they were obtaining nectar, steadying them- 
selves somewhat by their prothoracic legs, but maintaining their position chiefly by 
vibrating their wings. In all cases, when feeding upon nectar, I found that the moths 
repeatedly coiled aud uncoiled their long, flexible maxillae, and their antennae were 
usually kept in rapid motion. 

The cow-peaand whippoorwill pea possess numbers of small, circumvallate glands col- 
lected at the end of each peduncle, which is produced slightly beyond the last flower. 
These glands secrete au abundance of nectar. When the moths of Aletia are i^lentiful 
they can always be found in large nrimbers wherever these pea-vines — cultivated be- 
tween the rows of corn, and sometimes in cotton-fields, where a " stand" of cottou was 
not obtained — grow, aud I have seen many of them feeding on the nectar. 

At the base of the petioles or leaf-stalks of the larger coffee- weed are single globu- 
lar glands of a reddish or brown color, and their convex surface secretes a considera- 
ble quantity of nectar. When feeding upon this I found that the moths preferably 
alighted on the stem just below tbe leaf-stalk. Standing here, with their heads up- 
ward, they rapidly moved the tips of their maxillae over the entire surface of the gland, 
often coiling aud again nncoiliug them while doing this. Meautime their antennae were 
kept in constant vibration, touching the gland, petiole, stem, and, in fact, everything 
within reach of them, as though to guard against surprise liiy their enemies. When 
another moth, of their own or some other species, crowded them aside, it seemed to dis- 
turb them very little, but the slightest contact with my finger always made them take 
flight. Occasionally a moth alighted on tbe petioles or on the flowers or pods in the 
axils of the leaves, and it then stood head downward while eating the nectar, but by 
far the most of them rest on the stem, as described above. 

The following-named plants possess extrafloral nectar glands and grow more or less 
abundantly where my observations were made : I, the smaller cotfee-weed (Cctshiia obtu- 
sifolia); 2, the partridge pea (C chanuuchrista) ; 3, C. nictitans, sometimes known as 
the wild sensitive plant, but to be distinguished from several more sensitive legumi- 
nous genera, including Mimosa, ihe true sensitive plant, growing more or less commonly 
in the same region ; 4, the wild senna (C marilandica) ; 5, tbe common passion-flower, 
or May-pop, {Passiflora incarnaia) ; G, the cultivated bonnet-sqttash. With the excep- 
tion of tbe first, these all secrete a considerable quantity of nectar, and, though I did 
not detect the moths of Aletia in feeding upon it, there is no reason why thej' may not 
sometimes do so, since other insects are attracted by it. 

I have seen the adult Aletia feeding on the following-named fruits: 1, the peach, 
both ripe and decaying; 2, the apple; 3, the fig; 4, the scuppernong grape; .^, the 
jujube. When feeding upon the peach the moth forms a small oval opening through 
the rind with the tips of its maxillae; through this it is able to reach the interior of 
the peach, from which it extracts the juice. Though many apples were examined, I 
never saw one the skin of which had been perforated by tlie moth ; but where birds 
had eaten holes in the fruit I often saw motus running their proboscides into the flesh 
thus laid bare.* Aletia moths were often seen to perforate the skin of the common 
purple fig in order to reach the juicy interior, though sometimes they made use of the 
opening which naturally exists at the large end of the fruit. They were found feed- 
ing on the juicy pulp of the grape, through the thick skin of which they seem to have 

* Moths were also seen several tunes sucking the juice from apples which had been pared and sliced 
afterward being placed in the sunlight to dry. 

24 c I 



370 KEPORT UPON COTTON INSECTS. 

no difficulty in working their maxillae, forming small oval holes as in all of the fruits 
previously mentioned. As the fruit of the jujube ripens, its hard skin cracks in places, 
and these are utilized by the moths, which are thus spared the labor of forming open- 
ings for themselves. In all of these cases the juices are removed from the Heshy part 
of the fruit, reducing this to a fibro-spongy mass. When feeding, the moths often col- 
lect in such numbers as to completely cover the fruit, and several may be seen at the 
same time with their proboscides inserted into one opening in the skin of the fruit. A 
curious thing that I repeatedly noticed, but which may not always occur, is that when 
feeding on fruits the moths usually vibrate their antennae very little, while in feeding 
on nectar they keep them constantly in rapid motion. Though I saw no instance of it 
myself, I am informed that the moths sometimes feed upon decaying j)omegrauate8, 
but do not trouble those which are sound. 

When flying from one place to another, and especially after being disturbed, the 
moth moves with a peculiar darting flight, which renders it exceedingly difficult of 
capture; but when visiting the involucral glands of cotton or the glands on the peti- 
oles of the coft'ee-weed, I have noticed that it often hovers with a steady motion from 
the lower part of the plant upward, though in a few cases I saw this order reversed. 
When at rest, as is the case from sunrise to sunset, the moth clings to the lower surface 
of the leaves of cotton, the cow-pea, and such other plants as it tinds convenient to its 
purpose, or occasionally to the petioles or stems of these plants. When settled on a 
leaf I have found that the moths most often stand with their heads turned toward the 
base of the leaf. When standing on a leaf-stalk they likewise usually have their heads 
pointing to the stem of the plant. When at rest on the stem I have noticed that their 
heads are most often turned toward the ground. I have a few times noticed frightened 
moths alight on the horizontal petioles of cotton-leaves, clinging to the sides of them 
with their heads directed upward. 

The sense of sight appears to be quite well developed in these moths. Not only do 
they often see an approaching person, but they possess some notion of color. Their 
color sense is evinced by the following facts : One day, between sunset and dark, while 
watching large numbers of moths, I noticed that many of them flew directly at the 
bright-orange but odorless and uneatable berries of the thorny hedge-plant, but, 
haviTig reached the berries, they immediately flew away again. It was also no- 
ticed that they select the red (ripe) jujube berries for food, discerning them at some 
distance, though surrounded by green ones ; yet here the sense of sntell may possibly 
have aided them. When only one or two attack a peach I have observed that they, like 
birds, choose the rosiest side. While standing without a coat, a little after sunset, I 
found that numbers of moths flew against the sleeves of my white shirt, aud when 
standing after dark beneath a tree in which a lantern was hung so that its rays fell on 
me, I found that many of them flew against my white hat. These observations seem 
to show that at least the colors orange, red, and white are recognized by these moths. 
This color sense is implied in the remedy spoken of in the Patent Office Report for ISoG, 
page 7G, viz., hanging white flags in the cotton-fields for the moths to lay their eggs 
on. Though I often used an open lantern in making my observations, I did not find 
that many moths of this species were attracted to it. Occasionally one would buzz 
against it when there were hundreds all about it, bur by far the greater number of them 
ignored it entirely. Some few were attracted into the house by lights, but they formed 
a very insigniticant part of those within a few rods of the house, where they could 
not fail to see these lights. My experience seems to show that an unsteady, flaring 
light, as from a blazing pine-kuot, is far more attractive than the steady light of a 
lantern. 

Concerning the sense of smell in these moths, I have only negative evidence to offer. 
At different times all through the season, and constantly until the first of July, baits 
of the following sorts were exposed: vinegar and molasses in varying proportions; 
rum and molasses ; beer and molasses ; dried apples soaked in beer sweetened both 
with sugar and molasses, vinegar or rum being added occasionally. These baits were 
exposed in shallow vessels, smeared on the trunks of trees and on old stumps, «fcc., 
while the last mentioned was hung in various places about the cotton-field. Some 
were watched several hours after dark, others were poisoned aud the ground about 
the^u examined early in the morning; yet not above half a dozen adult Aletias were 
captured in this way, most of the victims being moths of other species, cockroaches, 
a tew beetles, and some small leaf hoppers. This seems to show that Aletia is not very 
sensitive to odors such as these baits produce, and which are found so attractive to 
many moths of the noctuid group. Early in the season overripe plums were crushed, 
sweetened, aud allowed to ferment before being exposed to the visits of insects; but 
the species attracted by this bait were similar to those just mentioned. In early Sep- 
tember, when the moths of Aletia were very abundant, scuppernong grapes were treated 
in the same way, and these did attract numbers of these moths. 

Whatever may be the sense or combination of senses guiding it in the instinct which 
leads it to deposit its eggs on nothing but the cotton-plant, I cannot say, but so far as 
I know, the moth never ovixjosits on anything else. 



APPENDIX I EEPOETS OF OBSERVERS. 371 

Since, in the course of its life, Alet'm exists in the four states of egjjj, larva, pupa, and 
imago, four theories have been possible concerning the form in which it lives from one 
year to another ; for unless one or more of these forms survived the winter, the species 
would necessarily cease to exist. 

Thus, some planters believe that it may pass the winter in the egg, and it is known 
that some lepidoptera do hibernate in this state. But it is improbable that Alctia does 
so, at least in the United States, for the following reasons: The larva, on its emerg- 
ence from the egg, must be where it can readily obtain food, else it will perish of starva- 
tion. Now, so far as I am aware, it never feeds on anything but parts of tiie cotton- 
plant ; therefore the eggs must be deposited either on some part of this jilant or on 
something closely adjoining it, from which the newly hatched larva can readily reach 
the plant. But the cotton-plant is an annual, perishing at the end of the first season, 
and in preparing the ground, in winter, for the planting of the next spring, the stallis 
of the dead plants are broken down and plowed under. This would be likely to destroy 
any unhatched eggs laid on the plant late in the fall. For the same reason eggs de- 
posited on plants growing as weeds in the cotton-field or in the ground would in all 
probability be killed. 

As there are numbers of insects, including some lepidoptera, which are known to hiber- 
nate as larvae, it has been suggested that this species may pass the winter so. Lepidop- 
terous larvae, which survive tbe winter, are usually protected from the cold in one of tlie 
following ways: 1. Wood-borers are inclosed in the cavity which they have already 
formed in the tree on which they feed. 2. Some loaf-eaters form hibernacula of the 
leaves of their food plant. 3. Others either burrow into the ground or shelter them- 
selves beneath stones or clods of earth. As Aletla is a leaf-eating caterpillar, it must 
hibernate in either the second or third way if it passes the winter in the larval state. 
Arriving in the cotton-belt about the middle of May, and leaving about the middle of 
September, as I did, I was unable to make any observations bearing upon this point; 
but I cannot learn that these caterpilhirs have even been known to web leaves about 
themselves excepting when about to pupate ; and even if they were to do so, the plow- 
ing under of the dead plants would be likely to destroy many of them. My own obser- 
vations show me that during the spring and summer they never enter the ground 
nor creep beneath stones, and I am told ihat they are never found when the ground is 
plowed late in the winter. These facts make it appear extremely improbable that 
Aletia ever passes the winter as a larva. 

Many farmers believe that this insect hibernates as a pupa, burrowing into the ground 
for protection from the cold. Years ago the observations of scientific men showed 
that frost kills such Alefia pupae as are still webbed up in the leaves when cold weather 
comes on ; and I have never seen one taken from the ground, nor have I learned of an 
authentic case where this has been done^ the planters who have found them mistaking 
other pupae for those of Aleila. 

A large number of insects, including some lepidoptera, are known to hibernate in 
the perfect state, and from the improbability of its surviving the winter in any other 
form, as shown above, and from the fact that thousands of moths are seen late in the 
fall, and a small number early in the spring, it appears pretty certain that Aletia 
hibernates as a moth. This being granted, we come to one of the points about which 
scientific men have had many disputes, viz, whether the moth hibernates in the cot- 
ton-growing regions of the United States, or whether the species becomes extinct in 
our country each year, the caterpillars of the next year being developed from eggs 
laid by moths coming from within the tropics. Not being in the cotton-belt during 
the winter, I was l^nable to demonstrate from my own observation which of these 
theories is the true one ; but I am inclined to believe in the first-mentioned, for the fol- 
lowing reasons : On the 17th of May I located myself on a plantation situated in Dal- 
las County, Alabama, on the Selma and Gulf Railroad, about "23 miles south of Selma. 
Here, on the 21st of the same month, a fully-grown Aletia Inrva was found, which 
shortened preparatory to pupation that night. This was the earliest caterpillar seen 
on that plantation. 'But on the 17th of May a full-grown larva was found on the 
plantation of Col. C. T. Lewis, situated nearly west of Selma, and therefore con- 
siderably further north than my locality. Now, if the moths which deposited the eggs 
from which these larvae were hatched came from some southern region, as the Baliamas, 
we would expect to find the earliest larvae in the most southern sections of the 
cotton-belt, neglecting the difierence in temperature which would tend to produce 
the same result ; but those which were found this season showed the reverse to be the 
case, making such migration appear improbable. Moreover, planters assure me that 
on warm afternoons in winter they often see scores of these moths sunning themselves 
beneath the eaves of negro cabins and other buildings. A number of planters have 
told me of finding these moths within the hollows and beneath the loose bark of (lead 
trees in midwinter. When discovered they were perfectly torpid, but when taken into 
a warm room they soon showed signs of life, and in a short time were able to Hy rapidly 
about the room. " One man told me that last January, while having a thick bed of 
fallen leaves raked open, he found a large number of these moths lying torpid among 



372 REPORT UPON COTTON INSECTS. 

the leaves. Probably it will appear at first sight as if nothing conld he more concln- 
sive than this testimony, and such would be the case if one could be sure that the 
moths found were always Aletias. But while I have the greatest confidence in the tes- 
timony of some of these men, I should hesitate before saying that anything is proved 
by the statements of men not accustomed to making careful scientific observations. 

If any reliance is to be placed on the testimony of planters, that given above, com- 
ing from many sources, will, if taken in connection with what has been stated con- 
cerning the distribution of the first brood of larvae, make it appear extremely probable 
that Aleiia survives the winter at least as far north as Dallas County, Alabama. 

It is commonly believed by planters that the caterpillars are, as a rule, more plenti- 
ful after a cold than after a mild winter. This is sometimes brought forward as evi- 
dence that the moths do not hibernate with us, for severe winters ought to destroy 
more of them than mild ones ; therefore, if they really survived the winter in this 
country, there would be more larvae after a mild than after a severe season ; but when 
this is considered carefully it seems to confirm the theory of hibernation. If the moths 
come from some tropical region every spring, it is hard to see what connection there 
"would bo between the severity of our winter and their greater or less abundance the 
next spring and summer; but if they hibernate in our cotton-belt, this is readily ex- 
plained; lor of the thousands which seek hibernacul.a in the fall, some will certainly 
fail to secure a sufficient protection from the cold and will freeze to death ; in other 
words, each motb, in seeking its winter quarters, stands a certain chance of not find- 
ing a sufljciently warm place. In a very cold season moths will perish in places where 
they would be safe if the cold were less intense, but those which have secured safe 
quarters will remain dormant there till the warmth of spring calls them forth to lay 
their eggs : they take the chance of failure but once. But in a mild winter each warm 
day entices many from their retreats, and some necessarily fail to return to as well 
protected places as they previously occn])ied, so that the next succeeding cold spell 
kills them ; they take tliis chance many times in such a winter. 

As the winter advances the number of moths constantly diminishes, until in April, 
when the cotton begins to appear above the ground, comparatively few are left to lay 
their eggs upon it; and the general testimony of planters is that scarcely any of thia 
brood are seen after the middle of April. 

From the eggs laid indiscriminately on the leaves of young cotton by th'3se moths, 
the first brood of larvae hatch. On the plantation where I did most of my work, only 
four of this brood were found, and it will be instructive to notice where they were 
found. May 21 a full-grown larva was found on some small cotton which, I am told, 
■was i)]ante(l April ;>t), and was well up by about May 8. This cotton, however, imme- 
diately adjoined some which was planted a month earlier, and it is probable that the 
caterpillar was hatched on the older cotton. This was on a rather damp piece of 
ground. May 2:5 another was found in the same field, but in a dry, sandy place. On 
the same day another was foimd on some cotton of the earlier planting, on a dry clay 
hill, June 'A another full-grown larva was found, this time on cotton growing in dry, 
sandy soil a mile from the place where the <;thers were found, and at a considerably 
higher altitude. This cotton was sown about April 1. When found the larva was 
webbed uj), but had not yet transformed into a pupa. Two things will appear from 
this : 1. Individuals of this first brood difi'ered in age by nearly two weeks. 2. They 
were found on bottom land, clay, and sand, iu a swamp, on an elevation rising from 
this, and on a ridge considerably removed from the swamp. 

The second brood of larvae was first noticed by me on the llth of June, when I cap- 
tured a luilf-grown larva on the bottom land near where the first worm was found the 
month before. I had, however, learned of the capture of partly-grown worms of this 
brood a week and a half earlier, iu the canebrake west of Selma and near Montgom- 
ery, both of which places, it will bo noticed, were further north than the point at 
which I was located. I found a few other larvae of this brood at intervals up to the 
7th of July, when the first pupa was seen. These larvae were, with one or two excep- 
tions, all found in damp bottom-land near where I found the first, and I had previously 
been told that the first caterpillars were always found about this spot, though none 
were conmiouly seen before the latter part of June. 

July 14, having been absen^, from this plantation for' a week, I returned, and on exam- 
ining the bottom-land just mentioned, I found quite a number of caterpillars belong- 
ing to the third brood. Some were very small, othei's were nearly half an inch long, 
and one or two which were half-grown were seen. At the same time two pupae be- 
longing to the second brood were seen. Owing to the fact that there are very few 
larvae of the first and second l)roo(ls, this is the first that planters usually see of the 
caterpillar, though I am told that this brood sometimes appears a couple of weeks ear- 
lier; hence they call this the " first crop." Larvae of all sizes, with some pupae and a 
few moths belonging to this brood, were found up to about August 1, shortly after 
which eggs and larvae of the fourth brood were seen. With few exceptions this brood 
■was confined to bottom land. 

Like the preceding, the fourth brood, or so-called "second crop," was chiefly con- 



APPENDIX I EEPORTS OF OBSERVERS. 373 

fined to this bottom-land, though covering a much ]arger portion of it than the other 
did, and being sufficiently numerous to have eaten the foliage from ten or lifteen acres 
of cotton if it had not been poisoned. Similarly to what was found with the third 
hrood, this consisted of larvae of all ages, from the little one newly hatched to the 
full-groAvn caterpillar webbing up preparatory to pupation, and with these were to be 
found pupae, and imagines laying their eggs; so "that, the fifth brood really bega« in 
small numbers at least a week earlier than the date presently to be given. This dif- 
ference in age between individuals of the same brood is at first sight a little puzzling, 
and renders it very difficult to separate the later broods by any sharp-drawn line; 
but wheu we consider that in the first brood I found a variation in age of nearly two 
weeks — the whole period of existence of a larva in the heat of summer — and might 
have found even a greater variation had I obtained more specimens, it is easily seen 
that their descendants must show the same difi'erence in age. 

By September 1, the larvae of the fifth brood, '"third crop" or " army," were appear- 
ing in considerable numbers, and wheu I left the field two weeks later they were still 
hatching in small numbers; some eggs were yet being laid, while many larvae were 
full grown, and some had already pupated. Unlike the second, third, and fourth 
broods, but agreeing with the first, these larvae were not confined to wet places in the 
swamps, but were almost equally abundant in the swamps and on the ridges, on cotton 
growing in damp ground and on that growing in dry places. 

About the first of July, in a conversation with me. Professor Riley said that he 
believed the common idea that Aletia does better in wet than dry weather to be founded 
in fact, and that the reason for it was that in wet weather AJvtia suffers less from its 
insect enemies than when it is dry. A few weeks later, when noting how the larvae 
were attacked by ants on cotton where ants were very plentiful, I became convinced 
that ants were among the most important of their natural enemies. About the same 
time I noticed that there were very few ants on the cotton where most of the larvae 
of the second and third broods — the latter of which was then in its prime — were found, 
the ground being too wet for their neats, while wherever the ground was dry there 
were myriads of them. From this I drew the following conclusions : The female moths 
which survive the winter lay their eggs on cotton growiug on ridge or in swamp, accord- 
ing as they hibernate near the one or the other. Of the first brood of larvae, those on 
dry ground infested by ants are mostly killed by these little insects, while those on 
ground too wet for the ants to live in comfortably stand a better chance for escaping. 
Webbing up where they have passed their larval state, these appear in time as moths, 
and,fiuftiug a sufficiency of food in the nectar secreted by the plants immediately 
about them, they for the most part migrate little, but deposit their eggs close to 
where they themselves were born ; and this explains the reason that the miijority of the 
second brood are found in wet places. In like manner, when the second brood appear 
as moths, they will feed and lay their eggs near where they have passed their liv^es ; 
which accounts for the limitation of the third brood. When this brood appear as 
moths, being nnuh more numerous than either of the earlier broods, they necessarily 
spread a little more, this scattering being in a more or less perfect circle about the 
spot which has thus far contained the larger number of caterpillars. The fourth brood 
when about to oviposit is generally so large in numbers that if they were to lay their 
eggs where have passed their lives there would not be food enough for their ollspring, 
especially as this brood is usually large enough to defoliate the cotton where they are 
found. Therefore they scatter far and wide, laying their eggs on cotton miles from 
any phice where caterpillars have been previously noticed, and ustially their ofi'spring 
are numerous enough to eat up the cotton in a very few days wherever they appear, 
and to show no decrease from the attacks of the ants or any of their otlier enemies. 

When there is much rain, the dry, sandy soil becomes saturated with water, so as to 
he almost a quicksand, and this, of course, injnresthenestsof the ants, interfering with 
their visits to the nectar glands of the cotton-plants. I have noticed, too, that in rainy 
weather comparatively few of any kind visit these glands. Rain, then, lessens the 
liability of the caterpillars being attacked by ants and wasps, as well as other of 
their enemies, which are driven to seek shelter, and this accounts sufficiently well for 
their greater numbers in wet seasons. 

Itisacommon belief that the caterpillars uevereatoutcotton which grows in theshade 
of trees or shrubbery. Though I looked at many shaded places in cotton-fields, about 
September 15, when most of the cotton had been stripped of its leaves, I found about 
as many places where theshade was no protection as where it was i)rotective. Wher- 
ever their proximity prevents the worms from eating cotton, I suspect that the trees 
or bushes serve as lurking places for insectivorous birds. 

Among other traditions which I have in mind are the following: Some planters be- 
lieve that they are certain to find caterpillars on their cotton wherever tlmy see lace- 
winged fliea. It is needless to say that there is no connection between the two, the 
lace- winged flies visiting the cotton everywhere in search of cotton aphides, near which 
they lay their eggs, their larvae being tiio well-known aphis-lions. 

A fo\V men believe that where the larger cotiee-weed grows iu a cotton-field the 



374 REPORT UPON COTTON INSECTS. 

caterpillars do not molest the cotton. Thoiigb I have seen a good deal of this plant in 
some cotton, I never noticed that it saved the latter. 

It is sometimes stated that rusted cotton is never eaten by Aletla. The term rnst is 
applied by farmers to a fungoid disease (rust proper), to the " red spider," and to 
leaves which dry up from disease in other parts of the plant, so that it is hard to say 
"what is meant by this statemenf. As a rule, the moths certainly do lay their eggs on 
healthy cotton in a vigorous state of growtli. 

NATURAL ENEMIES. 

For convenience of discussion, the natural enemies of Aletia may be divided into two 
classes : 1, those which are not parasitic ; 2, those which live at its expense as para- 
sites. The first of these may be subdivided into the ditferent zoological groups of wLich 
it is composed ; the second, so far as my observations go, consists entirely of insects. 
This arrangement may be seen by an inspection of the following table ; and in the dis- 
cussion which follows, the order there adopted will be adhered to : 

ri. Mammals. 
1. Imparasitic. ~; Arachnids. 
(4. Insects. 

2. Parasitic. < Insects. 



The only mammals that I have seen feeding upon Alrtla are one or two species of 
bats, which are usually spoken of by the planters as " leather-winged " bats, to dis- 
tingulhih them from the night-hawk, which goes by the appellation of " bull-bat." On 
the 2.')th of August, haviug occasion to study the moths of Aletia while feeding on the 
fruit of the jujube-tree (hhamnus zhi/pliKs) I hung a lantern on a branch of a small 
tree of tbis species, where hundreds ot the moths were collected. While making the 
observations for which I had gone out, I noticed that a number of bats, of several 
species, were flying in the vicinity of the tree, under which they repeatedly darted, 
each time catching a moth, which was immediately carried off. Planters tell me that 
in seasons when the cateri)illars are very numerous and the cotton is eaten up before 
they have reached their full size, they migrate in large numljers, so as to fill the wagon- 
ruts in the roads and collect in large piles in the fence-corners. When this is the case, 
pigs, and even dogs and cats, are said to feed upon them. 

lint two species of wild birds were seen eating the larvae of Aletia : these were the 
mocking-bird (Mimiis pohjylotus) and the indigo bird, or blue-bird as it is called in 
Alabama (Ciianospiza ciris). Once the nest of some sparrow was found in a cotton- 
plant, and as these birds feed their young on insect-larvae, it is probable that they 
may be counted among the enemies of the cotton caterpillar. The wild-turkey (Me- 
leafjris gaUoimvo) is not uncommon intheiiart of Alabama where my observations were 
made, and its tracks are often seen in the cotton-fields. Though I did not see turkeys 
feed upon the caterpillar, I saw places where their tracks were numerous, and where 
the cotton was more or less broken, as if by their leaping upward after the larvae on 
the higher branches of the plant, and I am assured by planters that these birds have 
been seen to feed upon the worms. Both chickens and domesticated turkeys eat the 
larvae on the cotton near houses, and the latter birds are said to sometimes seriously 
injure the cotton in jumping after the caterpillars. 

Very frequently leaves of cotton are found folded and webbed by Aletia, while the 
pupae have been removed through clearly-cut triangular apertures, evidently tnade by 
the bill of some bird. I am told Ihat the rain-crow (Coccik/iis nmeriraiitis) destroys 
many pupae of this insect. I have been told that the night-hawk or bull-bat (Chor- 
deiles virfjiniartvs) has been seen to catch the moths of this species when flying. 

Twice spiders were seen to kill Aletia. One day iti July I saw a small jami)iug-8pider 
(No. 2, July 2:?) (Alius nuhilus) leap upon a half-grown larva, which it killed and 
sucked the juices from. About twilight of August 27, while watching numbers of 
moths engaged in eating rotting peaches on the ground, I heard a rather loud rustling 
among them, and several took flight from the point wheie the noise was heard. Going 
to the spot, I found that a large ground-spider had captured one of the moths, which 
■was beating its wings in futile efforts to escape. Owing to the darkness, the spider 
was allowed to esc;ipe, so that I did not determine the species. In Alabama the large, 
green, spiny spider (Oxijopes viridans) is abundant on cotton-plants, and it is not im- 
probable that it may sometimes catch Aletia in its larvae and perfect states. 

To preserve the order thus far followed, it will be necessary to separate the impara- 
sitic insect enemies of Aletia info those wlaich destroy the egg, those which destroy the 
larva, those which destroy the pupa, and those which destroy the moth ; though this 
will, in a few cases, necessitate the insertion of the same insect in two or more of these 
groups. 

I have seen but one insect destroying the egg of Aletia, viz, the larva of one of the 



APPENDIX I REPORTS OF OBSERVERS. 375 

lady liirds (Hippodamia cotircrgrnn). This was on the 2C^th of AngiiHt ; the larva was 
searching the lower sixrface of a leaf, apparently for aphides, when it encountered an 
Jlefia egg, which it immediately bit with its mandibles ; but, as if disliking its taste, 
it left the egg uneaten and passed on. Later I saw this same larva bite another 
egg, and this, too, was left without further disturbance, but of course both eggs were 
killed. Though many hours were spent in looking for further attacks upon the eggs 
of ^4/^'//ff, the dilticulties necessarily attendant npon such observations prevented me 
from seeing any more. From the' actions and known proclivities of the lady-birds 
known as Hippodamia con revgens, H. mandatu, Coccindla muitda, and Vocdndla 9 noiata, 
all of which are found in abundance on cotton-plants, and of ChilocoriiH bivtihieru.^, one 
adult of which was seen searching the leaves of the cotton, I suspect that they all 
destroy these eggs more or less commonly. The larvae (aphis-lions) of the lace-winged 
flies are also very jilentifnl on cotton, where they prey npon aphides, and very likely 
they may also.destroy eggs of Aletia. Similarly, ants of quite a number of species 
freqnent the cottoc-plaut, whither they are attracted both by the sweet excretion of 
aphides and by the nectar copiously secreted by the foliar and involncral glands of 
the plant ; and, though I never saw them molest the eggs of Aletia, I believe that they 
do so. 

Wasps frequent the cotton-plant in considerable numbers, being attracted, like the 
ants, in part by the nectar secreted by the plant ; and there is much reason to believe 
that all of the species which visit the plant feed more or less commonly on the cater- 
pillar or larva of Aletia. I am led to this conclusion by the following observaticms: 
On the 8th of August, when larvae of the fourth brood of Aletia were very abundant 
in the swamp cotton, I saw a large red and yellow wasp {Polistes reUicosa) hunting 
for them. Carefully walking round the holes eaten through the leaves by the cater- 
pillars, she explored their borders with her antennae, as if feeling for the larvae; 
and each time that she found one in this way she quickly sprang after it, but at the 
same instant the larva threw itself from the leaf, so that while I was watching her I 
saw DO less than eight escape, the ninth being caught and eaten. Occasionally she 
would stop hunting long enough to sip a little nectar from the foliar glands of the 
plant, and then the chase was resumed. I was very much surprised to see that she 
relied entirely on the tactile sense of her antennae for finding her prey. Though 
possessing well-developed ocelli and compound eyes, she seemed to make little use of 
them, and repeatedly I saw her alight on a leaf close to a caterpillar without pa.ying 
any attention to him till she touched him with her antennae, when, as before stated, 
she would instantly spring after it. Observations of this sort were made several 
times on this wasp. Another rather large brown wasp was also seen to catch larval 
Aletias, as also were a yeilow-jacket hornet ( Vespa Carolina) and a common mud-dauber 
{Pelopaeufi caenilcus), and they all alternated hunting for caterpillars with feeding oa 
nectar. Both species of Polistes were several times seen flying aijout with dead cater- 
pillars, having previously reduced them to a pulpy mass with their mandibles. They 
were probably looking for some quiet place in which to eat them. 

From their great numbers and indefatigable industry, ants are probably among the 
most important of the enemies of the cotton caterpillar. Individuals of many sjiecies 
swarm everywhere on the cotton-plants, to which they are attracted night and day by 
Aphides and nectar. On many cotton-leaves there are places where some larva has 
eaten the parenchyma of the lower surface, but the most careful search fails to discover 
the lar v^a. Though not invariably so, these places are often eaten by very young larvae 
of Aletia, and as these are not to be found, it looks as though they had been removed by 
some enemy, probably ants, though I have never seen ants attack very small caterpil- 
lars. In July a number of caterpillars were collected in the bottom-land to which they 
were princii)ally confined at that time, and placed on cotton growing in dry, sandy 
soil, care being taken to see that there were no ants on this cotton when the larv;e 
were placed on it, for my insects in breeding-jars in the house had suffered so much 
from the deiiredations of ants that I was always afraid of their attacking larvae that I 
wanted to study in the field ; and these particular caterpillars had been removed to 
the cotton indicated because I wished to make observations on their habits, and wanted 
them as near the house as might be, while at that time the only larvae to he found iu 
numbers were about a mile from where I was living. Within two hours of the time of 
placing them on this cotton, each of these larvae was found by several ants, and 
these soon collected numbers of their fellows, whose combined attack so worried the 
larvae that they threw themselves from the plants and were soon killed and carried off 
by their small but persistent enemies. On several other occasions partly-grown cater- 
pillars were killed and carried oli' in this way by this si)ecies and a red ant, yet I never 
saw ants attack them on the plant, excepting when I had thus placed them on ridge- 
cotton for purposes of study ; but when creeping over the ground, as they do after 
eating up the foliage of the plant on which they were born, if not full-grown, hundreds 
of caterpillars were attacked by these ants and killed. I have never seen more than 
one species of ant attacking any individual caterpillar, either on the plant or on the 
ground. 

No lepidopterous enemies of Aletia larvae were observed by myself, but Dr. Lockwood, 



376 KEPORT UPON COTTON INSECTS. 

of Carlowvil]e, Ala., says that a number of years ago he saw a large green larva de- 
vouring numbers of cotton caterpillars. From what we know of the habits of the boll- 
worm {Edlotltis arnmjcra), it seems not at all unlikely that these larvae may have be- 
longed to that species. 

Several bugs (i/cwifjjffra) were seen to kill the cotton-worm. Early in the season 
great numbers of a large, ill-smelling bug with dilated hind legs {Acanlhoccphala feino- 
raia) were seen in the weeds and shrubbery about the borders of cotton-lields, being 
very noticeable on account of its buzzing flight. After Aletia appeared in numbers, 
fewer of these bugs were seen, but they were several times seen to catch caterpillars 
and suck the juices of their bodies. At difl'erent times through the summer, another 
bug (Anna spinom) was seen to kill these larvae, as also was another (Sinea multi- 
sj)i>iosa) which occurs in considerable numbers about cotton. 

These are all of the insects that I found preying upon the cotton caterpillar, or that 
I have reason, from my own observations, to think prey upon it; but, my friend Mr. 
John Wilkins, of Selma, Ala., tells me that in the canebrake he has once seen the com- 
mon green mantis (Mdiilif) Carolina) leap upon these larvae on plants near the borders 
of cotton-lields, but these insects do not venture far from the bushes around the held. 

Owing to its tough integument, the ])upa of Aletia seems to be freer from insect at- 
tack tban the larva is, yet even its hard skin does not always save it. About the mid- 
dle of August I first noticed what appeared to be an auomalous preparation for pupa- 
tion in the boll-worm {Heliothiii aynii(jera),ior I found several full-grown larvae of this 
species with leaves closely webbed around them, precisely as Aletia webs up before 
changing to a pui)a. An examination of one of these leaves, however, showed me that 
the boll worms Lad not webbed them about themselves, but had insinuated themselves 
into leaves folded and preoccui)ied by Aletia, the latter having already passed into the 
])upa state ; and they had done this for the express purpose of feeding on these pupae. 
Many cases of this sort were seen. 

In the latter part of July several Aldias, jast about to pupate, were taken from the 
swamp where tbey were found, and with leaves still webbed about them they were 
translerred to cotton on dry soil near the house, where they were tied by their leaves 
to the petioles of this cotton, my object in i)lacing them there being to determine the 
length of the pupa state. The same day they shed their last larva skins, and this left 
them in an almost defenseless condition till the pupa skin should become firm and 
tough. About twenty-four hours after this moult they were again visited, and were 
found covered with led ants, which had killed and partly eaten them all, though tbey 
were on difl'erent plants, and care was taken to see that there were no ants on the cotton 
when the larvae were placed there. 

Many specimens of a red bug of all ages have been seen about the pupae of Aletia, 
and they were often found within the loose cocoons of these pupae ; and, though they 
were not seen to molest them, their presence looks susj)icious. 

But one insect was found killing the imago or moth of Aletia,y\z, a two-winged fly 
(Abilns sericeu-s), whicli is very abundant about coi. ton-fields and was several times seen 
to catch the moths on the wing, afterwards eating them. 

Early in September, while watching these moths as they fed on rotting figs, I saw 
many white-faced hornets ( I'efipa nuienlata) about the fig trees. One of these liorneis 
was seen to catch a two-wing( d lly nearly as large as itself. After killing it, the hor- 
net proceeded to deprive thi- lly of its legs and wings, which were allowed to fall to 
the ground. The lly was then carried away. Under these same trees I found the 
wings of J/t/(<( moths, and it looks from this as though these moths are sometimes 
killed by the hornet ; still, I never saw a hornet in the act of killing a moth, or with 
the dead body of one, and am aware that their usual food is flies. 

By no means the least important enemies of any insect are its parasites, and these 
deserve careful attention in the present case. But to properly breed large numbers of 
l)upae for their ])arasites facilities are needed which could not well be obtained on a 
plantation, so that the determination of the percentage of parasitized pupae and 
the parasitic species was left to the department, a sufficient number of pupae for that 
purpose being forwarded to Washington. For some few observations made on the eggs 
of two parasites — probably dipterous — I would refer to my letters of July 24 and Au- 
gust 5. Two or three species of ichneumon flies were seen about cotton-plants, l)nt as 
they were all watched to see if thej' would oviposit in Aletia, none were captured, 
and they were, therefore, not identified. None of them were seen to molest the cater- 
pillar. 

Alter caterpillars had died from eating some of the poisons used for their destruc- 
tion, the following animals were seen to eat them: 1. Chickens, and these sometimes 
eat so many as to die from the efl'ects of the poison. 2. Ants of several species. Though 
I have never seen any of these little insects killed by being poisoned in this way, I 
think that this is often the case, for I have seen many of them eating the dead cater- 
pillars. 3. Aphis- lions were several times found sucking the juices of caterpillars that 
had died of poison. 

(The whole section of Mr. Trelease's report referring to remedies for the cotton- worm 
was incorporated bodily into Chajiter VII of Part I. — J. H. C. 



APPENDIX I REPORTS OF OBSERVERS. 377 

HELIOTHIS. 

NATURAL HISTORY. 

Unlike the cotton caterpillar, the boll-worm is not confined to one species of plant 
for its food, but is omnivorous, feeding for the most part on living vegetable substances, 
but occasionallj' becoming carnivorous when partly grown. From this it results that 
its eggs are not deposited exclusively on one species of plant; nor, when laid on the 
cotton-plant, are they confined chiefly to one part of it, as was found to l)e the case 
with those of Alelia. On the contrary, I have found them laid singly on the outside 
of the calyx and on the leaf petioles of the garden pea, on the peduncles and leaves 
of the cow- pea, on the upper surface of leaves of Indian corn, near their divergence 
from the stem, and on the outer surface of the husk near the tips of young roasting- 
ears, and on the petioles and both surfaces of the leaves of the cotton-plant, as well 
as on the outer surface of the bracts composing the involucre which surrounds the 
flowers of this species, and which is known to farmers as the square. Not having 
allowed moths of this species to lay in continement, nor having marked any eggs im- 
mediately after their disposition on cotton in the field, I cannot say how long a time 
is required for incubation. 

Very soon after its exclusion the young larva begins to feed npon the substance of 
the leaf or bract, or other organ on which it finds itself, aud when this chances to be 
a leaf or bract it leaves the epidermis on the other side for some time. During the 
first half day or day of its existence it feeds in this way, forming small, i regular, 
transparent spots in the blade of the leaf or in the bract, after which it pierces a 
hole — usually more rounded than that first formed by Aleiia — through the organ. The 
age at which this is done appears from my observations to be earlier than that at which 
the cotton caterpillar pierces the leaf, but I find that it differs greatly with different 
individuals, some piercing the leaf when less than ten hours old, some not until they 
are about two days old. After this, if it does not find itself close to a flower-bud, im- 
mature fruit, or some other object suitable for its food, the larva moves about in search 
of this food, finding which it shortly goes to eating. Whatever may be its food, this 
worm, according to my observations, always forms regular, round openings in its ex- 
terior for its own entrance or exit, and these vary in size with the size of the larva, 
being just large enough to allow the animal's body to pass with ease. Another pecu- 
liarity of this larva is its wandering character, especially earlier in the season, when 
feeding on the flower buds or forms of cotton, for, these being small, the contents of 
each is soon eaten by the worm, which necessarily moves on in search of more food. 

My attention having been given more to Ahtia than to this species, especially in 
the early part of the season, 1 find that the notes from which I am to judge of the 
number of broods of the boll-worm are very incomplete. But from such notes as I 
have it appears that there were four broods, of which only the last did much injury 
to cotton, most of the earlier broods feeding upon the Indian corn. 

When, about the middle of May, I began studying this insect, I found what I sup- 
pose to have been its first brood of larvae feeding upon the tender leaves which termi- 
nate the young stalks of maize; it is then sometimes called the " terminal-bud worm" 
of the corn. It is rarely that more than one larva is found on any plant Plants 
attacked by these bud-worms are easily singled out as one walks through the field ; 
for the leaves are pierced by many small holes, much as though a light charge of bird- 
shot had been fired through the plant. When such a stalk is founcl, if the leaves, be- 
ginning with the outermost, are carefully stripped off nearly to the bases of their 
sheaths, a quantity of excrement will be found between them, increasing as we go in- 
ward ; and the pale green larva which causes it will be found either within the sheath 
of a leaf or in a cavity that it has eaten in the closely-rolled terminal leaves, which, 
sooner or later, it always reaches. When it has attained its full size, the larva i^ierces 
the leaves about it with a round hole, through which it makes its exit, going into the 
ground for jiupation. It is my belief that this brood went into the ground late in 
May, being followed by another brood which pupated about the end of June ; but this 
is in great jiart based on memoi-y. 

Early in July, when roasring-ears were forming on the corn, another brood, the so- 
called car-worm or tassel-worm, was found feeding upon the silk and tender grain 
near the end of the ears. While for the most part the preceding broods varied little 
in color, being chiefly of a pale green, this brood consisted of larvae of various shades 
of green, i)ink, and rose. When fully grown — which occurred in the latter part of 
July — each of these bored a round hole through the husk of the ear, escaping through 
this aud falling to the ground to i)upate. 

The next brood, appearing not far from the Ist of August, when the ears of corn 
■were beginning to harden and when cotton forms and bolls were very plentiful, was 
chiefly confined to the latter. Before this time, a few larvae of this species had been 
found on cotton ; thus, on May 30, 1 found a partly grown boll- worm eating the leaves of 
a cotton-plant ten or fifteen rods from any corn, aud at this time there were very few 



378 EEPORT UPON COTTON INSECTS. 

forms on the cotton, and these were very small, so that the individual in question had 
probably fed entirely on the leaves. On the 11th of Jane, the lirst worm was found 
eating the young flower buds or forms, and a few others were found from that time 
onwaid ; but by far the most of these earlier larvae were contined to the corn. This 
brood, then, which I suppose to have been the fourth, was in its prime about the mid- 
dle of August, doing much damage to the forming cotton. 

Meantime larvae of each of these broods were found feeding, in greater or less num- 
bers, on the green fruit of the garden-pea, the cow-pea, the tomato, and the wild 
EnjtJtrina herhacea, leguminous plant related to the lirst two named. When eating the 
garden pea, the larva bores a hole through the papery pod for its entrance, then eats 
the entire contents of the pod before leaving it for another. But in eating cow-peas, 
which are contained in a more tieshy pod and se)iarated by fleshy partitions, it often 
bores into one chamber of the pod, eats the seed in it, and then, instead of cutting 
through the partition to reach the next, bores another hole from the outside. A sim- 
ilar observation was made concerning Enjihrina. Nor does the boll-worm content 
itself with this diet. Riley and Glover have pointed out other plants on which it 
feeds, and not iutrequeutly large individuals were seen by me eating the pupae of the 
cotton caterpillar and even smaller larv'ae of their own species; while, as stated under 
the head of the natural enemies of Aleiia, it is probable that they sometimes kill the 
larvae of that species. 

When a flower-bud or young boll of cotton is punctured by the boll- worm the in- 
volucre or "square" which surrounds its base spreads open or "flares," and sooner 
or later the injured fruir, falls to the ground. Even before the cotton commenced to 
bloom many of these blasted squares were to be seen on the ground, and in every case 
where the involucre had flared open I found the form punctured, though most of these 
punctures early in the season were very small, and had no excrement in the square 
beneath them, thus diflVring from punctures formed by the boll-worm. There is no 
doubt that these very small perforations are made by hemipterous insects, and I 
strongly suspect two bugs very common on the cotton-plant, which have the habit of 
running round the stalk as you try to obtain a view of them, much as squirrels do 
under i-imilar circumstances, so that they always keep the stem interposed between 
themselves and an observer. This shyness prevented me from verifying my suspi- 
cions, though I watched the insects a great many times. On the other hand, many 
blasted squares result from climatic injuries, and these may be distinguished from 
those caused by insects, since the square retains its normal position and form. 

When full grown the boll- worm enters the ground, forms a slight silken net, serv- 
ing, in connection with the loose earth bound together by it, as a cocoon, in which the 
larva shortens and becomes fusiform, its colors fading, preparatory to pupation. 

The i)upae of this species are plowed up in numbers, especially early in the spring, 
and many planters mistake them for those of Jlclht ; but, having no use for the anal 
hooks of the latter, the posterior end of their body is termiiuited by two slender 
jjoints, ofien so closely ai>pressed as to look to the naked eye like a single S'pine. This 
character readily distinguishes them from Aletia, as does their greater size and usually 
lighter color. 

The moths of this species, like those of Aletia, feed upon the nectar secreted by the 
glands of the cotton-plant, cow-pea, greater cott'ee weed, and probal)ly other plants, 
though I have never seen them feeding on others than those named, nor on fruits, 
which are also probably attractive to them. When feeding on nectar these moths 
vibrate their antennae rapidly, and, indeed, behave in all respects like Aletia, except- 
ing that they hold their wings slightly spread and inclined upward, instead of folding 
them close to their backs as the latter species does. Rarely, too, like the other species, 
they hover before the gland, steadying themselves by their fore legs. I did not And 
that these moths showed as marked an appreciation as Aletia does, nor were they any 
more abundantly attracted to my lights or baits. 

Like the cotton caterpillar, the boll-worm is more abundant in wet than in dry 
places — at least such was my experience — and it is also said to do better in wet than 
in dry seasons. This is readily explained by the hostility of ants, which are more 
abundant in dry than in wet places, and in fair than in rainy seasons. Early in June 
several half-grown " bud-worms " were collected on Indian corn and transferred to 
cotton-plants with a view to watching their actions. Care was taken to place them 
on plants on which there were no ants. Seating myself beside them, I awaited de- 
velopments. At lirst they evinced no desire to do more than conceal themselves be- 
neath the leaves from the glare of the sun. But it was not long before a stray ant 
appeared on the plant, and, finding a larva, proceeded to run round and round it, 
biting it whenever it could. Soon, however, finding that unaided it could do little, 
the ant left the plant, and, after watching it a short time, I lost sight of it; but in a 
few minutes it returned, accompanied by several others of the same species. In a lit- 
tle while the worm was so worried that it fell from the plant, and was soon killed and 
carried otf by its tormentors, which followed it to the ground. Several times I saw 
this repeated, the boll-worms being killed in each case within an hour from the time 



APPENDIX I REPORTS OF OBSERVERS. 379 

when ihey were placed on the cotton. The black ant3 were also seen to kill these 
larvae ou several occasions, and once or twice, when tbe worms bad not been inter- 
fered with by rae, I was able to note but one other enemy to lliis hirvae, namely, 
the boll- worm itself; for on several occasions, on the plant and undisturbed, I saw 
large boll-worms catch smaller ones, which they devoured hoof and hide, or some- 
times only bruised with their mandibles so that they could <>xtruct the juices from 
their bodies, the refuse being dropped. In trying to breed this species, I found that 
it would never do to place more than one larvae in a breeding jar, else the smaller 
ones were certain to be eaten by the larger. 

As previously stated, these larvae vary greatly in color, but this variation has no 
connection with the plant ou wbich they feed, so far as I conld see ; for green larvae 
were found on all of their food-plants, and deep-pink larvae were found ou tbe cotton- 
plant and ou the roustiug-ears of corn. Originally, this color variation may have been 
produced by its being protective to one individual to be pale green because it fed on 
the pale-green parts of some platit ; while another, feeding on deep-green organs, 
would be protected by being of a dark-green color; and another, feeding on a rose- 
colored organ — and tbe silk of some ears of corn as well as certaiii shades of the later 
stages of a cotton-flower, in which these larvae are not infrequently fi>uud, are well 
represented — would be protected by beiugof a rose-color. It is evident, however, that 
such color variation to be protective must be associated with an instinct leading the 
parent moths to lay such eggs as should produce light-green larvae on light-green 
plant organs ; such as should produce dark-green larvae, on dark-green organs, and 
such as should produce pink larvae, ou pink organs. Or, if this were not the case, 
larvae hatched on organs of different colors must have the power to become, them- 
selves, colored like these organs. Such cases are known to occur, but this is not the 
case with HeUotJiis, as has been already stated ; though it is possible that at one time 
these color variations may have been accompanied by suitable instincts in the moths, 
these iuslincts having been lost at a later time. 

REMEDIES. 

Of the means of destroying the boll-worm or the moth, which is its perfect form, I 
can say but little. Its natural enemies, whatever they may be, should be protected; 
and, like Alciia, this species may possibly be destroyed some day by some parasitic fun- 
gus, which may be utilized for this purpose. Tbe remarks made about the use of poi- 
soned sweets and tires for destroying the moths of Aletia will apply equally well to the 
imagines of this species. 

Since the earlier broods of larvae are found on the maize or Indian corn, first in the 
stalk, later in tbe ears ; and since the tendency of the species to multiply in geometri- 
cal progression makes it desirable to destroy the early broods if possible, I would sug- 
gest baud-picking of these earlier broods as the best way known to me of dealing with 
the pest. As was stated when speaking of the natural history of HcUolliis, if oue of 
these larvae has taken up its abode in a stalk of corn the fact can be detected by a 
very su|»erticial examination, owiug to the holes found in the leaves. Let, then, each 
plow-hand be instructed, when cultivating the corn, to stop whenever he linds such a 
stalk, and catch and kill the worm, even though it should occasionally be necessary -to 
destroy the plant in doing this, for the hill may be replanted, and the larva thus 
killed might, if suffered to live, become in a few gererations the parent of hundreds 
of boll-worms. Later, after the corn is "laid by" and has begun to fruit, boys may be 
sent through the fields to kill the "tassel- worms," the presence of which may be detect- 
ed by the excrement at the end of the ear or by the silk being eaten away. To catch 
these, it will be necessary only to open the husk for a short distance back from the end 
of the ear, and from the ease of discovering affected ears the expense will not be great. 
It is objected to this, that ears so opened are exposed to the weather and the attacks 
of birds. Though it must be admitted that this is true up to a certain point, the de- 
structiou of all ears so interfered with does not follow, and the great lessening of the 
next crop of boll- worms will, I am certain, more than pay for what corn is sacrificed. 

After the species has taken up its abode in the young bolls of cottou, baud-picking 
is the only remedy that I know of, and, being far more expensive than with the earlier 
broods, tliis does not seem practicable. When the cotton is poisoned to destroy the 
caterpillar, some of the young boll -worms, feeding on leaves or bracts, are poisoned, 
and I have seen a few large ones destroyed in a similar manner; but from the fact 
that they feed for the most part on the contents of the boll, making only a round hole 
throughits exterior, poison cannot be well used in dealing with them. 

Plow-bauds should be instructed to destroy every pupa plowed out of the ground, as 
in this way many belonging to this species will be killed. 

In closing, I have to express my gratitude for the many aids and kind encourage- 
ments which I received from George O. Baker, Col. N. H. R. Dawson and his man- 
ager, Mr. J. P. Melton, Capt. R. M. Nelson, Capt. N. D. Cross, and many of the other 
planters about Selma, Ala. 



A-PPEISriDIX II. 



ANSWERS TO CIRCULAR. 

The following answers to the circular letter printed in fall in the in- 
troduction to this report are arranged as follows : First, according to the 
sequence of the questions ; second, alphabetically, according to States. 
The name of each correspondent and of the county from which he wrote 
is given ; the full addresses of correspondents may be found by referring 
to the list given in Ap^Dendix III. 

PAST HISTORY OF THE COTTON-WORM. 

Question 1. — Give, so far as you can from friistworthij records, ike earliest year in which 
cotton n-as grown in your iSiate, county, or locality. 

ALA 15 AM A. 

Cotton was {rrown as early as 1825 in this county. — [H. Hawkins, Barbour. 

Some few settlements in this county, LJuUock, then Mactm County, in 1836, but not 
generally settled iintil 1«40 to 1842— [J. R. Ro-jers, Bullock. 

I think about 1817 or 1818.— [C. C. Howard, Autaui^a. 

Cotton was probably grown in the State wlien it was first settled, 1818, or earlier. 
This part ot the State was settled as early as 18L7. — [R. W. Russell, Lowndes. 

The growth of cotton was on a limited area as early as 1818 in this locality ; by 1825 
and 1828 it became a general crop. — [Robert S. Williams, Montgomery. 

First grown in this county in 1832. — [.John D. Johnston, M. D., Sumter. 

In its earliest settlement, about 1810. A few years later in this county. — [H. A. 
StoUenwerck, Perry. 

Cotton was grown on a small scale as early as 1820 ; and after Indian war of 1836 it 
was more extensively raised. — [I. F. Culver, Bullock. 

Cotton was grown in this locality as early as 1817, but not as a^eWcrop before 1825, 
extending rai)i(lly from that time. — [P. T. Graves, Lowndes. 

In my locality cotton was grown immediately succeeding the removal of the Creek 
Indians in 18.J()-'37. — [A. D. Edwards, Macon. 

We have no records here of the exact years in which cotton was first grown ; it was 
commenced on a small scale and gradually increased from 1820, and reached its great- 
est about 1-^58.— [H. C. Brown, Wilcox. 

My recollection dates back to 1827, but it was grown even before that time. — [Jamea 
M. Harrington, Motiroo. 

About the year 1820. — [M. W. Hand, Greene. 

1830. — [Knox, Minge, and Evans, Hale. 

Being a native of both the State and county where I now live, and am now fifty- 
eight years old, can say that, as far back as I can recollect cotton has been grown here. 
For the last fifty years I should say it has been the leadiug staple. — [Andrew Jay, 
Conecuh. 

First cotton grown in this locality in 1812.— [R. B. Dunlap, Greene. 

Cotton was grown in small (juantity as early as 1825 in Autauga County. There are 
no records showing this, but there are persons now in this vicinity who testify to its 
truth, — [Charles M. Howard, Autauga. 

Cotton first grown in this locality in 1813, or to a very small extent as early as 
1800.— I. D. Dreisbach, [Baldwin. 

The county of Bullock was created from sections of Pike, Montgomery, Barbour, and 
Macon, in 1861). In lbl9. Pike County grew 7,192 bales of cotdon. The whites began 
to settle Montgomery County in 1816 or IM17. Macon and Barbour were formed from 
the territory of the Creek Indians in 1832. Cotton was grown on the land now cov- 
ered by Bullock as early as 1816 or 1817.— [R. H. Powell, Bullock. 

Cotton was grown in this (Conecuh) county, from trustworthy records, as early as 
the year 1817. — FP. D. Bowles, Couecuh. 

380 



APPENDIX II ANSWERS TO CIRCULAR. 381 

Cotton liasbeeu grown in this county (Dale) since 1825. I have lived here from then 
until now.— [J. C. Matthews, Dale. 

Very little in the State was grown previoua to 1820, and that little was grown for 
domestic use. — [David Lee, Lowndes. 

Cotton was first grown in the southern part of Sumter County about 1830.— [.I. N. 
Gilmore, Sumter. 

Alabama was admitted into the Union as a State in 1819, and it is known that cotton 
■was cultivated before that time.— [H. Tutwiler, Hale. 

Cotton was generally grown in Alabama in 1819 and 1820, when the State was ad- 
mitted into the Union, and had become a staple article. And as Alabama is one of 
the best cotton regions in the cotton-belt, its cultivation increased rapidly, and became 
a paying industry to the first settlers. — [Dr. John Peurifoy, Montgomery. 

About the year 1816 or 1«17.— [J. S. Hausberger, Bibb. 

ARKANSAS. 

Cotton was first grown in 1SG7 for market in this county. — [John T. Wickham 
Clay. 

Cotton was grown in this county as early as 1846. — [Norbourne Young, Columbia. 

Prior to the war there was little more cotton made in this county than for home use. 
Since the war there has been a good deal o'f cotton raised for shipment, say 1,000 to 
2,000 bales per year. — [S. W. Cochran, Fulton. 

I am unable to obtain any trustworthy account of the early history of the produc- 
tion of cotton in Miller County, which was a portion of Lafayette County until re- 
cently. The earliest date I can obtain is 1835. — [E. T. Dale, Miller. 

First cotton grown in 1835. There was but little raised until 1840. — [T. S. Edwards, 
Pope. 

FLORIDA. 

No definite knowledge. — [F. M. Meekin, Alachua. 

The first cotton grown in this county for market was in 1851. — [John B. Carrin, 
Taylor. 

There is very little cotton raised in this section, and the habits of the growers are a 
series of old time superstition ; all evils are chargeable to the influence of the moon. — 
[W. E. Woodruff, Duval. 

There is very little cotton grown in this part of Florida, and no worms have ever 
affected it. — [John M. McGehee, Santa Rosa. 

Cotton was cultivated in Middle Florida as early as 1827. — [Robert Gamble, Leon. 

GEORGIA. 

Cotton first planted in the county in 1848, but not generally raised until 1854. — 
[Timothy Fussell, Coffee. 

Cotton was introduced into Georgia as a crop between 1790 and 1800. — [William 
Jones, Clarke. 

From the best information that I can get, about the year 1822 or 1823. — [S. P. Odom, 
Dooly. 

Cotton was grown in Jackson County first about 1781, but to a very small extent. 
This county was then called the Cherokee Nation, abounding with savages, wild beasts, 
♦fee— [E. M. Thompson, Jackson. 

Cotton was not grown in our county earlier than 1820. — [A. J. Cheves, Macon. 

Cotton, to a small extent, was grown by aborigines, the Indians, long before I was 
born. 1 was born in 1828. — [William A. Harris, Worth. 

From the best information I can get, the first cotton raised in Georgia was in the 
year 1739 or 1740, on the Island of Saint Simon's, by a Mr. Harton. The iirst year it 
■was grown in this county was 1828. The first I ever saw grown was in 1812. — [Mor- 
gan Kemp, Marion. 

1805, in the county.— [John T. Wingfield, Wilkes. 

Cotton has not been raised as a crop in this county till within the last ten years ; 
have had but little trouble with the worm. — [James R. Brown, Cherokee. 

There is but little cotton planted in Chatham County.— [George P. Harrison, Chat- 
ham. 

We do not raise cotton in this county to any considerable extent; know nothing of 
its enemies. — [M. D. Lansford, Catoosa. 

There was but little cotton grown in this county up to 1845. — [H. W. Hammett, 
Cobb. 

LOUISIANA. 

No cotton grown in this parish. — [G. W. Thomas, Saint Mary's. 
In Carroll Parish, Louisiana, in 1827. — [C. B. Richardson, E. Carroll. 
According to tradition, it was raised here at the beginning of this century — say 
seventy-five years ago. — [Douglas M. Hamilton, West Felinciaua. 
1 have no records.- [I. U. Ball, M. D., West Feliciana. 



382 EEPOET UPON COTTON INSECTS. 

MISSISSIPPI. 

Descending: the Mississippi River (from Canada) Charlevoix arrived at Natchez and 
there spent Christmas in 17"i2. During this visit he saw the cotton-plant growing iu 
the garden of Sieur Le Noir, clerk of the Mississippi Company (or as then styled the 
Company of the Indies). Bienville mentioned the culture of cotton in the colony ia 
1735; Stodard, in 1740; and George Vaudreuil (as quoted by Judge X. Martin), in a 
dispatch iu 1746, mentions cotton among other things brought in boats down the Mis- 
sissippi Ri%'er to New Orleans. It has been cultivated iu Louisiana and Mississippi 
ever since. — [D. L. Phares, A M., M. D. Wilkinson. 

The earliest period cotton was grown iu this State and county was about 1830. — 
[John C. RuFsell, Madison. 

Cotton has been the staple product of this county since I emigrated to it in 1S46, 
and it had lieeu for many years previous. — [E. H. Anderson, M. D., Madison. 

I am not aware of the existence of any trustworthy records on the subject ; prob- 
ably, judging from the memory of old persons, it was grown iu this county as early as 
the year IHlf). — [C. Welch, Covington. 

Winston County was organized and settled in 1833 and 1834. Cotton was planted 
soon after. — [William T. Lewis, Winston. 

Cotton was grown in Mississippi before its admission as a State, 1817. This coun- 
try was inhabited by Indians until 1834, 1835, and 1830. They raised no cotton after 
the sale of their lands, under the treaty of 1833, and amended in 1834. Iu 1835 white 
settlers raised cotton on a small scale. — [Kenneth Clarke, Chickasaw. 

About 1832. — [C. F. Sheirod, Lowndes. 

When and from whence the plant was first introduced into Mississippi is not cer- 
tainly known ; most probably by the early French colonists from Sr. Domingo, which 
was a touching point for the company's ships. It would seem that its cultivation 
hero a'id in Louisiana on a small scale for domestic uses ))receded that of Georgia. 
Charlevoix, on his visit to Natchez, 1722, saw it growing in the garden of Sieur Le 
Noir, the company's clerk. Mention is again made of it 1735, 1740, 1746. (See Wailes's 
Geology of Mississippi, 1854). — [J. W. Burch, Jeii'erson. 

From the best information I have been able to procure from old citizens I find that 
cotton was cultivated in this State about the same time it was introduced into Louis- 
iana. The first cotton-gin made in this State was by the order of the United States 
Government, at a place i-u Monroe County that has borne the name of Cottongin ever 
since. It was made to encourage the Choctaw Indians to raise cotton. Cotton was 
raised by all the Indian tribes in this State at a very early day. This, Clark County, 
was a portion of the last purchase from the Choctaw Indians. Cotton was ^ilanted 
here by the whites soon after the purchase. The first account I have been able to 
procure of the cotton crop is for the year 1833 ; that year the crop was 380 bales. — [W. 
Spillraan, Clark. 

In the county of Amite the first cotton was grown in small quantities as early as 
A. D. 1809, but was limited to small farms, there being no cotton-gins iu this county 
at that early day. — [George V. Webb, Amite. 

NORTH CAROLINA. 

Cotton has been grown in this county since 1820, but only on a small scale until 
18G7. — [Jonathan Evans, Cumberland. 

Cotton for domestic use was first raised in 1806. — [Jasper Stone, Gaston. 

Cotton was not much grown before 1810. — [F. I. Smith, Halifax. 

Cotton has been cultivated in this county to a small extent probably since about the 
year 1800, or perhaps earlier ; but very little was produced until about 1850, when, 
owing to the exhaustion of the turpentine trees, our farmers were forced to turn their 
attention to its cultivation. Since then the product has steadily increased. — [John 
Robinson, Wayne. 

There is no cotton raised in this county. — [Joseph Livingston, Henderson. 

We raise no cotton in this county.— [S. W. Blalock, Mitchell. 

There is not a bale of cotton grown in this county. — [T. L. Rawley, Rockingham. 

Notwithstanding we are in a Southern State and southern latitude, we have a north- 
ern climate ; consequently there never has been a pound of cotton raised in our county, 
and we know nothing of the history of the worm. — [W. H. Hartgrove, Haywood. 

No cotton raised in this county for sale.— [James M. Barnett, Person. 

We do not grow cotton in this county. — [J. W. Cooper, Cherokee. 

Only a small quantity grown in this' county. — [W. G. Curtis, Brunswick. 

As cotton is not raised iu this couuty for market, no observations have been made 
relative to the insects that proy upon the crop. — [J. J. Erwin, Burke. 

SOUTH CAROLINA. 

Cotton was first grown in this district in the year 1783, although in a very limited 
manner for a number of years. It soon, however, became generally planted. — [James 
W. Grace, Colleton. 



APPENDIX II — ANSWERS TO CIRCULAR. 383 

I cannot ^ive the time of introduction of cotton in this county, but it was raised 
before the Revolntiouary War of 177G.— [Paul S. Felder, Oranseburgh. 

In this county about the year 1807 cotton was first grown.— [James C. Brown, Barn- 
well. 

TENNESSEE. 

Cotton was first raised in this county about the year 1810. We have no records on 
the subject here. Cotton has been raised in the State to some extent ever since it was 
a State. — [D. W. Holman, Lincoln. 

Cotton first grown in the State in 1790 and in the county in 1808.— [A. W. Hunt, M. 
D.. Perry. 

There is no cotton grown in Robertson County. — [George W. Walker, Robertson. 

Cotton is not raised to any extent ; sometimes a little for domestic use. — [J. K. P. 
Wallace, Anderson. 

Scarcely any cotton is grown in this county. Cotton-worms are strangers here. — [J. 
S. Thomason, Monroe. 

But little cotton grown in this county ; never saw or heard of a cotton-worm here. — 
[Ephraim Link, Greene. 

There is no cotton raised here. — [H. W. Hart, Bledsoe. 

Cotton is not grown in this county to any considerable extent. — [J. S. Lindsay, Camp- 
bell. 

No cotton nor cotton-worms in this county. — [W. C. Emmert, Unicoi. 

There is not suflicient cotton raised in my county to justify a report. — [A. Gardner, 
Weakley. 

We raise but little cotton in this county. — [J. W. Hammer, Sevier. 

No cotton raised in this county. — [Robert McNeilly, Dickson. 

Very little cott^m has ever been raised here. — [John F. Hauser, Grundy. 

This county does not raise cotton. — [L. C. Hall, Jackson. 

Too far north for cotton. — [Miles F. West, Macon. 

Cotton was raised from 182:5 to about 1830. Cotton became as low as four cents per 
pound when farmers abandoned the raising of it. — [Thomas .J. Mason, Loudon. 

As cotton is not raised in this countj', or at least to so small an extent it is not worthy 
of notice — [J. P. Hooke, Blount. 

Cotton was grown in this section in 1818. — [John McMillan, Decatur. 

About 1815 in the county. — [E. W. Cunningham, Henderson. 

TEXAS. 

In this State, Texas, we suppose very little cotton was planted before the annexa- 
tion to the Union. I moved to this State in 1854, and found large fields in cotton at 
that time.— [W. T. Hill, Walker. 

After 1840 cotton was grown to some extent in our county. The five years preced- 
ing 18.50 in a considerable quantity. — [.J. H. Krancher, Austin. 

The cotton making in this county is small in extent, and also careless in procedure. 
The data for information is very inadequate for giving satisfaction. — [Prior Lea, Go- 
liad. 

Austin's Colony, the central portion of Texas, began to be settled by American colo- 
nists in 1820-'21, and cotton culture soon after commenced. The writer arrived here 
in April, 1834, direct from Massachusetts, and cotton then was universally cultivated 
throughout Central Texas. — [A. Underwood, Brazoria. 

Cotton was grown in this county in the year of 1835.— [Stephen Harbert, Colorado. 

1840. — [H. J. H. Brensing, Bowie. 

Cotton was first raised for sale in the year 1840. About that time the first gins were 
established. Cotton was probably raised in small quantities in other parts of the State 
before that period. — [S. B. Tackaberry, Polk. 

I arrived in Washington County, Texas, November, 1838. I found but little cotton 
raised, and but two or three gins ; they were owned by Dr. Asa Hoxie, Judge .1. P. 
Coles, and Mr. Foster. Cotton was grown in other counties east of the Brazos River 
more or less. — [O. H. P. Garrett, Washington. 

In 1877 in this county. — [William Tanner, Clay. 

No cotton planted here.— [A. Turpe, Maverick. 

In this section of the State very little cotton is grown, and in my own county 
(Menard) comparatively none; the soil is adapted to its growth, but the climate is 
too dry. — [J. F. P. Kriuse, Menard. 

Theie is no cotton raised in this county. There is no cotton grown in this State 
from the San Antonio River to the Rio Grande. The climate is rather too dry and 
windy.— [W. R. Hayes, Bee. 

Cotton has not been planted in this county extensively as yet; only'by way of ex- 
periment. — [James O. Gaffeny, San Patricio. 

Cotton has been raised in tliis county since 1858. It was grown in the State earlier.— 
[P. S. Watts, Hardin. 



384 EEPORT UPON COTTON INSECTS. 

Cotton was raised in Harrison County in 1846, and in Upshur County in 1347 ; but 
sparsely, as there were no gins. — [J. M. Glascoe, Gilmer. 

The iirst cotton raised in this county in 1857. Tlie culture of it was abandoned in 
18()0. and taken up again in 1868.— [A. Schroeter, Burnet. 

1853, in this county. From the beginning of the war until 1867 no cotton was 
raised. — [R. Wipprecht, Comal. 

In the year 18'il Jared E. Grace came to this State (Texas) and brought the first 
cotton seed, and planted it the next year. In 182:} planted the uuginned seed; then 
gins were imported, and the tirst gin-house was built in the Brazos, about three miles 
from here.— [P. S. Clarke, Waller. 

Cherokee County organized in 1846. Cotton grown many years before. — [Walter 
Barnes, Cherokee. 

Cotton was first raised in the county in 1865 — [Samuel Davis, Hunt. 

In the State (I have no authentic information in the county), in che year 1845, and 
in this locality iu 1846. — [J. W. Jackson, Titus. 

Captain Burnham had a small patch of cotton growing in 183.'> and 18o6. — [Natt. 
Holman, Fayett*. 



QuKSTiON 1 a. — Ditrui(j what year did ihe worm first maVe Us appearance in your locallff/, 
and, as far as you are aware, in the State ; in other rrords, koto many years elapsed after cot- 
ton first began to be grown before the worm began to work upon it f 

ALABAMA. 

About thirteen years elapsed before the worm made its appearance in sufficient force 
to damage cottou ; it appeared in 1830. — [J. S. Ilansberger, Bibb. 

First appearance in my locality was about the year 1861, as nearly as I can recol- 
lect. — [J. A. CaUaway, Montgomery. 

One of my neighbors says that it was first noticed in this part of Alabama in 1843-'44. 
My impression is, that it was here before that time. At least we had what was then 
called the " army worm," and I think that it destroyed cotton as well as grass ; but I 
cannot speak i>osi(ively on this subject. — [H. Tutwjler, Hale. 

Cotton-worm ajjpeared here iu 1828, and did considerable damage to the cotton 
crop. — [Jason Jones, Montgomery. 

1846. Not less than thirty years. — [H. A. Stollenwerck, Perry. 

The worm Iirst made its appearauce in this locality in 1847. I am not aware of their 
having made their ai)pearance before that time in the State. — [A. D. Edwards, Macon. 

About the year 1848 or 1849.— [H. C. Brown, Wilcox. 

The cotton in this part of the State has never been troubled by the cotton-worm. — 
[W. M. Douglass, Madison. 

In Alabama the worm began to attract attention in 1837. — [J. M. McGebee, Santa 
Rosa, Fla. 

1852. Twenty-two years after cotton was first grown. — [Knox, Minge & Evans, 
Hale. 

According to my memory the cotton crop was eaten up in my locality in 1826 or 1827. 
I think that was about their first appearance. — [Andrew Jay, Conecuh. 

Caterpillar made its first appearance in 1845. Was not general even in this county 
but were rtry destructive in 1848. — [H. Hawkins, Barbour. 

The worm first made its appearance in this locality in 184.5. — [R. B. Dunlap, Greene. 

During 1846, and were more numerous then than they have ever been since. About 
ten years after cotton was planted the worms made their appearance in this neighbor- 
hood. — [J. R. Rogers, Bullock. 

1824. My locality was at that time Burnt Corn, Monroe County, Alabama, latitude 
31° 42'. The worms came late and were not rmmerous and did no damage. The 
same year they were reported in Southwest Georgia. In 1825 they were numerous here 
by the 1st of October ; did not go farther than latitude 32^. — [David Lee, Lowndes. 

Cotton worms first made their appearauce in this county in the year 1825, which 
makes eight years from the first planted to the coming of the worms.— [P. D. Bowles, 
Conecuh. 

The cotton-worm was first noticed from about 1828 to 1830; and some think their 
existence was known within one or two years after cottou was first cultivated. — • 
[Charles M. Howard, Autauga. 

First appearance to attract attention, 1836. — [I. D. Driesbach, Baldwin. 

From 1836 to 1842 the worm was here, but too late each year to do mirch damage 
other than litter the cotton. — [J. C. Matthews, Dale. 

About 1840. Don't know of any in the State before that time.— [James M. Harring- 
ton, Monroe. 

Worms first appeared in 1844, about the 15th of September.— [George W. Thagard, 
Cienshaw. 
In 1846. They came to this locality about September 23, and did their work of eat- 



APPENDIX II ANSWERS TO CIRCULAR. 385 

ing tbe entire crop iu three clays. They kept south on a lino of 23" ^5' north latitude. 
Have not been so numerous since. — [R. H. Powell, Bullock. 

Somewhere about 1840.— [C. C. Howard, Autauga. 

The first destructive or general crop of worms was in 1847. During the first week 
of September of that year they destroyed the foliage of the cotton-plant over the en- 
tire country. From 1847 to 18G0 I do not think they were ever general in this section. — 
[R. S. Williams, Montgomery. 

First appearance between years 1843 and 1849 ; about twelve or fifteen years after 
first planting. — [John D. Johnston, Sumter. 

Worms first destroyed cotton here about the 1st of September, 1846.— [J. N. Gilmore, 
Sumter. 

The cotton-worm made its first appearance about 1840. — [I. F. Culver, Bullock. 

The first year the cotton-worm nuide its appearance in this locality was 1845 or 1846 
in the latter (lart of September, more than 27 years after the introdaction of cotton. — 
[R. W. Russell, Lowndes. 

About the 20th of September, 1846, the Aletia argillacea made its first appearance in 
this locality, or, as far as I know, in this State ; thirty-eight years from the first i)lant- 
ing of cotton.— [P. T. Graves, Lowndes. 

ARKANSAS. 

In 1840 one party says that he saw cotton- worms. — [E. T. Dale, Miller. 

The cottou-worm was bad in 1847. — [Norborne Young, Columbia. 

About twenty years ago. — [T. S. Edwards, Pope. 

Have not known of the cotton-worm in this section for eighteen years. — [L. N. 
Rhodes, Cross. 

I have lived here twenty-seven years and never heard any complaint of the worm. — 
[J. W. Ransom, Craighead. 

There has never been any cotton- worm in this countv ; suppose we are too far north. — 
[O. L. Dodd, Baxter. 

Never have been affected here with worms. — [John T. Wickham, Clay. 

The worms have not made their appearance in this county for some time. — [T. W. 
Quinn, Grant. 

We know nothing of the cotton-worm in this county. I have been producing cotton 
forty years and feel perfectly safe in stating that the cotton crop has not been injured 
by worms of any kind. — [Alfred A. Turner, Bradley. 

This county, situated on the headwaters of the Ouachita, in a mountainous region, 
is not properly a cotton country. It is better adapted to grain and grazing, hence but 
little cotton is grown, and but little tronble is experienced from worms or insects; so 
little, no one has paid any attention to their history or habits. Once in a while, not 
often, some worms appear and destroy the foliage after the plant has matured, doing 
little or no injury. In fact the farmers say it is an advantage, as it facilitates the pick- 
ing and in a cleaner state, as there are no dead, crumbling leaves to get mixed with 
the lint. — [G. Whittington, Montgomery. 

FLORIDA. 

The worm first appeared in this county in 1866 ; in the State in 1832. — [John B. Car- 
rin, T.iylor. 

1830; but then its ravages were inconsiderable. — [Robert Gamble, Leon. 

GEORGIA. 

The cotton-worm first made its appearance in 1804 ; and during the month of Sep- 
tember the crops were half eaten up, when a hurricane swept over the country and 
destroyed the worms. — [W. Jones, Clarke. 

The worm has probably oeen here at intervals ever since 1820, but I cannot fix upon 
any certain date earlier than 1842. — [A. J. Cheves, Macon. 

The worm first injured the cotton in this county in 1836, and then only to a limited 
extent. — [Morgan Kent, Marion. 

In the year 1843.— [S. P. Odom, Dooly. 

The worm did much damage iu 1847, and appeared in force nineteen years after, in 
1867.— [T. Fussell, Coffee. 

First appearance in this county in 1862 ; cannot tell when first appeared in the 
State. — [D. P. Luke, Berrien. 

1854, iu this county.— [J. T. Wingfield, Wilkes. 

The worm first appeared in this county eight or nine years ago. Do not know when 
it appeared in the State. — [William A. Harris, Worth. 

The worm never was seen or heard of until about ten years ago, say 1867.— [E. M. 
Thompson, Jackson. 

The cotton-worm has not made Its appearance here for several years, and never to 
do any material damage —[William Johnson, Murray. 

We'have never had any cotton- worm in this county.— [R. H. Springer, Carroll. 

25 CI 



386 KEPOET UPON COTTON INSECTS. 

The worm has never damaged the cotton in this locality. — [H. W. Hammett, Cobb. 

General Robert Toombs says the cotton-worm came from the West Indies to Florida, 
and from Florida to Georgia. He thinks I shall find it holding over in Florida, but 
that I am correct in stating that throughout the cotton-belt the worm of one year is 
not the parent of the worm of the next, and in the main cotton-belt it dies out in 
"whatever state it may hibernate. The insect had broken up the cotton culture in the 
West Indies in 1801-'02, and the migration of French cotton planters to Georgia on 
this account took place in these years. — [A. R. Grote. 

LOUISIANA. 

The worm first appeared in Carroll Parish, Louisiana, September 5, 1846, and was 
universal in the parish. In 1847 it appeared in August in the middle of the field. On 
the 30th of August the first crop weut into the chrysalis state, and the second crop 
swept every leaf before the Slst of September. — [C. B. Richardson, P2ast Carroll. 

From old settlers I have learned that while the old black seed-cotton was planted 
the army worm was not known. This cotton rotted badly, and the Mexican seed was 
introduced about 1820. Between 1820 and 1828 the army worm destroyed the crops, 
but in what year or years I cannot learn exactly. — [Douglas M. Hamiltou, West Feli- 
ciana. 

The first appearance of the cotton-worm in this county was about August 11, 1844. — 
[John A. Maryman, East Feliciana. 

MISSISSIPPI. 

1804. It is very probable that they appeared many years earlier, but of this I have 
no documentary or other proof that is reliable. They destroyed crops in Georgia as 
early as 1793, and in the Babmnas in 1788. Hence it is probable they did likewise in 
the country now called Mississippi at an earlier date. — [D. L. Phares, Wilkinson. 

My earliest recollection, 1845. — [.J. W. Burch, Jetter.sou. 

Betweeu the years of 1845 and 1850 the worms made their first appearance. — [John 
C. Russell, Madison. 

Worm was not known here until 1847 or 1848, about thirty years after the introduc- 
tion of cotton. — [C. Welch, Covington. 

My first knowledge of the injury to cotton by the worms was in 1858, though I have 
no doubt they did damage earlier. — [Kenneth Clarke, Chickasaw. 

The worm first made its appearance on my plantation in the year 1865. It was late 
making its appearance, and few in number, and did but little injury. — [Samuel Scott, 
Madison. 

1875 was the last year it was very destructive. — [William T. Lewis, Winston. 

In 1846 and 1847 they first made their appearance; were not seen again until 1887. — 
[C. F. Sherriod, Lowndes. 

In the year 1839 a few made their appearance in our cotton-fields, but did no dam- 
age. Afterward, in the year 1846, they appeared again in " power and demonstration" 
and well nigh ruined the crops in this locality. The worm appeared as early as July 
8 in small numbers ; again about the 28th of the same month in considerable force ; and 
again about the 18tli of August following they appeared the third time, and did not leave 
a vestige of the foliage of the cotton. — [George V. Webb, Amite. 

From all I can learn, the worm first made its appearance in this county in 1846, and 
afterward in considerable numbers in 1866, '68, '73, '74, and there were a few this year. — 
[W. Spillman, Clarke. 

NORTH CAROLINA. 

In the year 1847 a worm exactly similar to the cotton-worm made its appearance in 
large numbers ; this worm fed on grass, Indian corn, and cotton, doing more damage to 
corn than to cotton. I am unable to say that it was the genuine cotton-worm. — [John 
Robinson, Wayne. 

I find no one who ever saw a cotton-worm in this country before 1860. They have 
never done much damage here. — [Jasper Stone, Gaston. 

1863.— [F. I. Smith, Halifax. 

1867. — [J. Evans, Cumberland. 

Cotton-worms have never appeared in any injurious character or in such numbers 
as to be destructive ; we are too far north for them. When they have appeared it was 
late in the autumn, and they were rather an advantage than otherwise, as they re- 
moved the superabundant leaves and exposed the fruit to the influence of the sun. — 
[R. T. Weaver, Hertford. 

I cannot recall but one year (1872) in which the cotton-worm did any material dam- 
ag*^- — [H. M. Houston, Union. 

No cotton-worm in this section worth speaking about. — [T. H. Lassiter, Gates. 

This is the "Land of the Sky," and the cottou-worm is not known. — [D. D. Daviee, 
Jackson. 



APFENDIX II ANSWERS TO CIRCULAR. 387 

I am happy to report tliat no species of worm or insect has ever ^iroved injurious to 
the cotton in this county. — [J. D. Click, Iredell. 

Cotton-worm has never been in this locality. — [M. McKay, Harnett. 

So far as I am able to learu, the cotton- worm has not made its appearance in this 
county. — [Thomas Long, Yadkin. 

SOUTH CAROLINA. 

As early as 1793 the worm is said to have swept over Carolina and Georgia, but is 
first recorded in this county in 1804 as prevailing generally.— [James VV. Grace, Colle- 
ton. 

The first appearance of the cotton- worm in this county was about 1857. — [P. S. Fel- 
der, Orangeburgh. 

The worm first made its appearance in the State in 1800 ; in this locality in 1827. 
It was twenty-five years before the worm was known after the iutroductiou of tho 
jilant. — [James C. Brown, Barnwell. 

TENNESSEE. 

The AlcVm argiUacea first made its appearance in the county in 1850. Had made 
its appearance ten years earlier in older counties of the State. — [A. W. Hunt, Perry. 

This county has never been materially damaged by the cotton-worm. — [E. W. Cun- 
ningham, Henderson. 

The worm has never injured the cotton in this State. — [J. McMillan, Decatur. 

Henry County is on the extreme northern boundary of the cotton-belt. We are not 
troubled here with any insect or worm that injures the cotton-plant farther south. 
Our only trouble is the short season. — [N. Y. Cavitt, Henry. 

Have never seen the cotton damaged by the worm but once, then only to a very 
small extent. — [L. Dodsou, McMinn. 

TEXAS. 

From its earliest cultivation the oldest citizens do not remember. — [Walter Barnes, 
Cherokee. 

1834. A boat-load of cotton-seed was brought from New Orleans and planted, and 
that vear the worms made their first appearance and destroyed the crop. — [P. S. Ciarke, 
W^aller. 

In 1842 the cotton-worm came in force, more than any year previous. As the plant- 
ing and cotton increased the worm increased also, coming to do its mischief about 
every third year ; some years doing but little damage, others ({uite destructive. If 
June was a rainy month we expected the worm, as a small miller or butterfly gener- 
ally preceded it. — [O. H. P. Garrett, Washington. 

1870 or 1871. — [Samuel Davis, Hunt. 

18ti7 in the county.— [R. Wipprecht, Comal. 

1801 in this county, doing but little damage. — [J. M. Glasco, Upshur. 

1847.— [H. J. H. Brensing, Bowie. 

In 1859 was the first I knew of them in this State, but it is probable in the coast 
counties they appeared much earlier. — [P. S. Watts, Hardin. 

Cotton- worms first made their appearance in this county in 1846; can't tell as to 
other parts of the State, but as this is an old- settled county suppose not earlier than 
that date.— [S. B. Tackaberry, Polk. 

The appearance of worms in large numbers noticed for the first time in 1871. — [A. 
Schroeter, Burnet. 

Cotton-worms have never been here but once (1869), and then only in one field. — 
[John Speer, Blanco. 

In 1871 or 1872 the white cotton-moth, together with a large brownish butterfly, came 
in swarms like grasshoppers from north 10° east, by the needle, traveling south lu^ west, 
for about two days.— [A. Turpe, Maverick. 

The first appearance of the cotton-worm in Texas, according to the oldest inhabit- 
ant, was in 1846. They again injured the crops in 1852 and 1862. Since 1864 they have 
appeared every year, some years doing little or no damage. — [W. T. Hill, Walker. 

About 1850 the worm was first noticed in this county, but did not appear sutTficieutly 
numerous to destroy the crops until several years later. — [J. H. Krancher, Austin. 

They were first noticed here in 1849.— [C. B. Richardson, Rusk. 

My recollection is that the cotton-worm did not appear in this section of Texas until 
1844 ; then first on plantations near the Gulf coast, in Brazoria and Matagorda Coun- 
ties. — [A. Underwood, Brazoria. 

The first appearance of the cotton- worm in this county was in 1848 or 1849.— [Stephen 
Harbert, Colorado. 

If my memory serves me right, in 1857.— [Natt. Holman, Fayette. 

The first moth or worm seen in this locality was in the summer of 1867.— [J. W. 
Jackson, Titus. 



388 REPORT UPON COTTOX INSECTS. 

Question 1 &. — Specify the years u-lien it has hcen tmusuaUy nbundani and destructive. 

ALABAMA. 

From 1860 to 18G5 this section did not grow cotton generally. But there were no 
patches of cotton grown that did not develop worms at some time during the (season. 
In 1867, '68, '69, '71, '72, and '73 they were general. In 1872 and '7:5 they did immense 
damage to the growing crops. In 1870 this section was nnusnnlly dry ; worms only in 
patches. Crops for this year large. — [H. S. Williams, Montgomery. 

In 1849 they were especially bad, and nearly every year since more or less. — [.John 
D. Johnston, Sumter. 

During the years of the war — 1862 and 1863 — there was very little cotton planted in 
this locality, but sufficient to know that the cotton-worm was here, in 1866, '67, ^df^, 
'69, and '70 there were more or less worms ; 1873 was the worst year we ever had ; 1875 
and '77 they ate the cotton clean. — [R. W. Russell, Lowndes. 

In 1836 were very destructive. — [M. \V. Hand, Greene. 

In 1846 the worms were abundant, but not destructive ; the crop was good ; in 1866 
they were abundant and destructive, coming in force by the middle of August, with 
the crop, much of it young from replanting, in vigorous growth from frequent rains; 
1868, abundant, but not destructive ; 1873, most fatal year in the history of the worms. — 
[P. T. Graves, Lowndes. 

First in the year 182;"); again in 1831 or '32 (old citizens differ as to '31 and '32); also 
1867, '68, '73, '74, '75, '78.— [P. D. Bowles, Conecuh. 

1825, very abundant, but not destructive because of the lateness of the time (Otto- 
ber 1). In 1846 very abundant and destructive by the 25th of August. In 1869 and 
'73 the same. — [D. Lee, Lowndes. 

In 1840, '47, '54 ; after that in 1866. They should have made their appearance in 
1861, but we planted no cotton duriug the civil war. From 1866 to 1871, no worms; 
1871, '72. '73, aud '74, destructive ; in 1875, none ; 1876, '77, and '78, worms. — [James M. 
Harrington, Monroe. 

Their prevalence was at intervals of several years, and the belief was conunon that 
they were in some respects like the seven-year locust. So irregular in their advent 
from 1830 to 1860 that the idea of their septennial recurrence was entertained by our 
cotton-planters. They were unusually destructive in 1848, '49, '54, 'i?5, '58, '69, '71, '76, 
'77, '78. — [Charles M. Howard, Antauga. 

In Alabama they have been very destructive every year since 1840 whenever the 
last of July and the month of August were wet and cloudy. — [J. M. McGhee, Milton, 
Santa Rosa County, Florida. 

Very destructive in 1842, '44, and every year since, with the exception of 1858 and 
'59. No cotfou grown in this locality duriug the war. — [I. D. Dreisbach, Baldwin. 

1866, '67, '6S, '69, '70, '71, '72, '73, '74,' '76, '77, '7?^.— [H. A. Stollenwerck, Perry. 

1844, earliest recollection of the worm. In 1868 the worms appeared in strong force 
about the 20th of August ; they have missed but three years since.— [Geo. W.Thagard, 
Crenshaw. 

They were unusually destructive in 1847 and in several years since; dates not recol- 
lected. For the last ten years they have been more or less numerous each year. — [A. 
D. Edwards, Macon. 

The cotton- worm has been very destructive here since 1865, some seasons earlier than 
others. — [J. C. Mathews, Dale. 

1K64, '67, '68, '72, '73, '74, '76, '78.— [John Witherspoon Du Bose, Montgomery. 

Their next appearance was, I think, in 1868, and have been more or less common 
every year since. In 1872 they were probably more numerous than at any time since 
1846, and more destructive ; they came in August. — [R. H. Powell, Bullock. 

From 1860 to the present year; more destructive in the years 18u9, '73, '74, and '75, 
but more or less every year ; some localities worse than others, as was the case this year ; 
some parts of this county the leaves completely stripped, while others have escaped en- 
lirely. — [II. C. Brown, Wilcox. 

1866 and '73.— [John Peurifoy, M. D., Montgomery. 

Every year since 1863, except 1875, when there was but a few. — [J. H. Smith and J. 
F. Calhoun, Dallas. 

More destructive in 1846 than any year since ; destructive in 1867 ; in 1873 destroyed 
the entire crop; in 1878 crop was injured until about 25th of September; east and 
southeast of here the crop was destroyed the last of August aud hrst of September. — 
[J. N. Gilmore, Sumter. 

The worms were very destructive in this locality in 1866, '71, '72. — [J. S. Hansberger, 
Bibb. 

1866, '68, '72, wS, '76, '78.— [J. A. Callaway, Montgomery. 

There were none in 1865, but in 1866 they were very abundant and destructive ; also 
in 1872, and I think in 1874 and '76.— [H. Tutwiler, Hale. 

.1852, '63, '64, '66, 'm, '69, 72, '73, '76, '78.— [Knox, Miuge, and Evans, Hale. 



APPENDIX II ANSWERS TO CIRCULAR. 389 

In 1840 the caterpillar almost destroyed the crop. It appeared iu July and eat tbo 
bark off the cotton-stalk, which has not been the case since. It next appeared in 18G8, 
late in August, and destroyed the top crop ; was very destructive iu 1873, but iu 74 lesa 
so : iu 1873 made its appearance in May.— [II. Hawkins, Barbour. 

After 1826 or '27 a considerable interval took place before they appeared iu destruc- 
tive numbers again. It has been observed that their ravages have been more fre- 
quent as the country has grown older; that is, as the lauds are older and country 
more open. — [Andrew Jay, Conecuh. 

There has been no year since 1845 in which they have not made their appearance ; 
usually more destructive about every third year.—' [R. B. Dunlap, Greene. 

In 1872 they were more destructive than any year since 1840. But little cotton was 
planted during 1803 and '04, but nearly the entire crop was destroyed either in 1803 or 
'04; I forget which.— [J. R. Rogers, Bullock. 

The worm was most destructive in 1872 and '73.— [I. F. Culver, Bullock. 

From 1800 to '78, inclusive ; 1807, '70, '73, '70, and '78 were the most destructive years. — 
[R. F. Henry, Pickens. 

ARKANSAS. 

In 1847 ; about 'r)3 and '72. — [Norborne Young, Columbia. 

In 1805, '00, and '07 they were very destructive, but since that time there have been 
but few each year. — [E. T. Dale, Miller. 
In 1875 and this year. — [T. S. Edwards, Pope. 

FLORIDA. 

In 1832, '39 or '40, and '72.— [John B. Carrin, Taylor. 

GEORGIA. 

According to ray experience, the worm was especially abundant in the years 1825, '40,, 
43, 40, '47. In 1852 the worm made its appearance, but did no material harm. — [VVill- 
iam Jones, Clarke. 

The years 1843, '49, and '52.— [S. P. Odom, Dooly. 

The greatest destruction in this couuty occurred from the years 1808 to '74, inclu- 
sive. — [Morgan Kemp, Marion. 

1608, '72.— [D. P. Luke, Berrien. 

It has never done any material damage except in the years 1808 and '73. — [A. J. 
Cheves, Macon. 

1808 and '74. We have never had them but a few times. — [John T. WingSeld, 
Wilkes. 

1868, '69, '71, '73, '74, '75 most destructive. In 1876, '77, and '78 they d!d not injure 
the cotton at all.— [T. Fussell, Coffee. 

There has been but two or three years that the army-worm has visited our country, 
and it was a question whether they did a service or a damage ; I think they did some 
damage. In 1869 and '74 they were here in force. — [E. M. Thompson, Jackson. 

Don't remember. The worm was a benefit to me, as my cotton was too thick. My 
people care but little for the worm. They destroy them when they become too de- 
structive. — [Wm. A. Harris, Worth. 

LOUISIANA. 

In Carroll, Louisiana, 1840 and '47. — [C. B. Richardson, East Carroll. 

The years in which they were most destructive are 1844, '07, '70, '72, '74, '77, and '78. — 
[John A. Maryman, East Feliciana. 

In 1844, '04, '00, and '67 they were unusually abundant and destructive. — [Dr. I. U. 
Ball, West Feliciana. 

In 1841, upon a return visit from school to the plantation, I saw the army- worm for 
the first time. It was then late in the fall ; the cotton was yet green with leaves and 
white with open bolls. Scarcely any damage was done to quantity of ci'op made, but 
the quality was made very bad by the litter and excrement of the worm, dropped on 
the open cotton. In 1846 they appeared very early in the season and cut the crops in 
this section short from 50 to 60 per cent. A few may have been seen by some jiersons 
after that year, but no damage was done by them until after the war broke out. The 
fact that no notice was taken of them generally and no damage done by them in this 
section j)rove8 that they were very few in numbers, even if they existed at all. As a 
general rule in this section, our people planted very little cotton during the war, and 
no appearance of the worm was observed until 1865. But in the lower jiortions of the 
State, after the occupation of the country by the Yankee forces, the army-worm ap- 
peared very generally, and at such early dates as to cut the crops off very short. Since 
1805 they have appeared here annually ; sometimes early and sometimes late ; .some 
years doing very little damage, and again working great destruction of the cotton 
crops. On some plantations they are worse than on others, and this occurrence is gov- 
erned by no rule or natural laws understood or observed by our i)eople. — [Douglas M. 
Hamilton, West Feliciana. 



390 EEPORT UPON COTTON INSECTS. 

MISSISSIPPI. 

1804, '14, '2:-, '46, '6S, and I might add '38, '67, '73, &c. They may be found every year; 
but most years do little damage, sometimes none except in very small areas. — [D. L. 
Phares, Wilkinson. 

1845 and every year, more or less, until 1864, the most destructive of all years. I only 
made 3 bales on 125 acres land ; cotton eaten up in July. Again in 1867, '68, '69, '73, 
(bad), '76, and '77. Again this year worse than any since '73.— [J. W. Burch, Jefferson. 

Abundant in the years 1847 or '48 and 1866, '67, '68, '77, and have done some injury 
this year. — [C. Welch, Covington. 

In 1858 ; then slightly for two other years. In 1868 they were very bad. In 1872, 
'73, '74, and '78 they greatly injured cotton. From 1861 to '65, inclusive, there was very 
little cotton planted and no record kept of that little (during the war). — [Kenneth 
Clark, Chickasaw. 

They were very destructive in 1867, '73, '74, '76, and this year (1878). — [C. F. Sherriod, 
Lowndes. 

1867 and '68, and other years I do not remember. — [Dr. E. H. Anderson, Madison. 

They were more abundant and destructive in the year 1867 and the present year 
(1878) on my place than any other years. They commenced in force in the year 1867, 
on the 5th of September, and in live days they had eaten my crop up. They com- 
menced about the middle of September of the present year, and have been increasing 
ever since. — [Samuel Scott, Madison. 

Have been planting since 1R72. Have had cotton-worms every year, more or less, 
but more destructive in 1873, on account of early destruction of crop, eating mine out 
early in August ; other years not stripping the cotton until September. — [Daniel Cohen, 
Wilkinson. 

In 1846, '53, '60, '66, '72, and '78 in this county. — [George V. W^ebb, Amite. 

NORTH CAROLINA. 

1865.— [F. I. Smith, Halifax. 

1867, '70, and '73.— [J. Evans, Cumberland. 

The cotton-worm has never done any real damage here except in 1869, and that year 
it appeared very early, the third brood hatching out last of August. The cotton 
fields were completely swept of leaves e.iiiy in September. In IHfP.?, '6(), '67, '68, and 
'69 we had more or less of them. Have not seen a single one since 1869. — [John Robin- 
son, Wayne. 

SOUTH CAROLINA. 

They disapjjesred after the gale of 1804, and were not noticed again till 1825, when 
the entire cotton crop was destroyed by them. From 1825 to 1846, they were noticed 
as damaging certain localities every third year. In 1846 they destroyed every cotton 
crop, causing the fields to look as if swept over by fire. Again, they prevailed in the 
years 1650, '61, '64, '67, '70. Since then they have appeared in certain localities and 
destroyed cotton crops now and then, but have not been so general except on the 
islands (sea). There they appeared every year, some years in larger numbers than in 
other years. — [James W. Grace, Colleton. 

The cotton-worm was most abundant about the years 1872 and '73. They have never 
been so numerous as to do much damage.— [Paul S. Felder, Orangeburgh. 

1838, '40, '41, '46, '49, '52, '57, '62, '74.— [James C. Brown, Barnwell. 

TENNESSEE. 

From 1850 to 1861 the worms very gradually increased, with the exception of two or 
three seasons when the weather was unfavorable to their develoiiment. — [A. W. Hunt, 
Perry. 

TEXAS. 

Every year except 1872, when we had an extremely dry summer, and in 1876. Most; 
destructive in 1867. — [Natt. Holman, Fayette. 

In the year 1867, about the 10th of August ; two broods this year. Again the last 
of August, 1868, two broods; too late to d[o much damage. — [J. W. Jackson, Titus. 

The years when most abundant and destructive is when the mouths of June and early 
July are moderately or tolerably wet. I knew them, however, one or more years, to 
come when the season was moderately dry. — [O. H. P. Garrett, Washington. 

Since 1861 the years of greatest abundance were 1866, '73, and '77. In '66 and '73 
they devoured every green leaf and young boll, and tben died of starvation ; in '77 
came too late to do much damage. — [ J. M. Glasco, Upshur. 

Cotton was destroved by worms partially in 1846, '50, '65, '06, '6f^, '69, '70, '71, '72, '74, 
'75, '76, '78, and in '67, '73, and '77 totally.— [S. B. Tackaberry, Polk. 

No record has been kept. I can only give from my own knowledge since 1866. In 
'67, '71, '73, '74, '76, and locally the present year. — [Walter Barnes, Cherokee. 



APPENDIX II ANSWEES TO CIRCULAR. 391 

They have been with iis every year since 1867 ; but not seriously affecting tbo crops 
previous to that date. — [P. S. Clarke, Waller. 

18G8, '73, '74, and '75.— [P. S. Watts, Hardin. 

1807 and '68.— [R. Wipprecht, Comal. 

.Very abundant in 1871 and '73 ; destructive in '74 and '76. — [A. Scbroeter, Burnet. 

,Iu the years 1867 and '73 they swept the cotton-fields of Southern Texas like a besom 
of destruction, very little cotton being made. They have swept the fields many years 
since, but '67 and '73 are noted years, as nothing was made. — [W. T. Hill, Walker. 

From 1850 to 1860 the worm appeared several times in sufficient numbers to iujure 
the cotton, but not to destroy it ; 1863, very destructive ; 1886, the worst year up to 
that date ; 1868, the worst year of all, the worm appeared (lirst brood) latter part of 
May ; 1875, '77, very bad, crop injured 50 per cent. — [J. H. Krancher, Austin. 

Here in 1849, '64, and in '76.— [C. B. Richardson, Rusk. 

The cotton-worm was more destructive in 1867 than ever before or since, although 
very abundant in the years of 1877 and '78. — [Stephen Harbert, Colorado. 



Question 2. — State what you Jcnoiv from experience of the effects of weather on the insect 

ALABAMA. 

The cotton caterpillar prevails most when the seasons are wet, rather than dry. 
But it is not clear to my understanding that a wet season is in itself the cause of 
the appearance of the caterpillar. A wet season and black prairie soil, or other causes, 
superinduce a sappy growth of foliage and weed, and it is, generally speaking, only 
the cotton heainlij charged with sap which is attacked by the caterpillar. It will eat 
such cotton up in a drouth, while oftentimes in a wet season cotton grown on clayey 
soils adjacent is untouched. — [John W. Du Bose, Montgomery. 

This question will be answered in this way : Six out of ten farmers will say that 
damp, cloudy weather, with continuous rains in July and August, is the most favor- 
able, while the remaining four will say they have seen crops destroyed during a very 
dry season in August; consequently, the general conclusion is that the weather has 
but little eifect upon the cotton-worm. — [P. D. Bowles, Conecuh. 

Am not certain ; but as the sun's rays cannot pass through a green leaf, and the eggs 
are laid on the under side, where the worm also lies during the heat of the day, I 
doubt whether the weather has much eliect upon them. — [R. H. Powell, Bullock. 

When there is cloudy weather in July and August they are most destructive. When 
these months are hot and dry and the plant becomes tough, they cannot do much 
damage. — [J. C. Matthews, Dale. 

A dry, hot summer Is supposed to be unfavorable to their increase to a great ex- 
tent. — [A. D. Edwards, Macon. 

The opinion which seems most prominent in this locality on this branch of the sub- 
ject is that the more rain the more likely will the caterpillar appear, and vice versa. 
During the rainy seasons there is, of course, more cloudy weather as well as more ten- 
derness in the leaves of the plant, both of which are regarded favorable to their prop- 
agation and ravages. — [Andrew Jay, Conecuh. 

Rainy and cloudy weather is certainly more favorable to its propagation. If the 
summer (early summer) is wet we look for the caterpillar with considerable cer- 
tainty. — [H. Hawkins, Barbour. 

My opinion is that in wet, cloudy weather they are more destructive than in clear, 
dry weather. — [R. B. Dunlap, Greene. 

The weather most favorable for the rapid growth of the cotton-plant seems to be 
the most favorable for the worms. In other words, the worms are most destructive 
on cotton growing rapidly, because it is more tender and succulent.— [J. R. Rogers, 
Bullock. 

Damp and cloudy weather is best for worms ; if the weather is very dry and hot it 
acts against them.— [I. F. Culver, Bullock. 

I am of the opinion that the worm is not much affected by the weather, after it has 
come out in full force, but upon this point a good many farmers differ. The general 
opinion is that warm, wet weather is most favorable to its increase.— [J. A. Callaway, 
Montgomery. 

The opinions of planters in this section differ very widely on this point. They are 
generally more destructive in wet seasons, though I have seen them in full force when 
we have been dry in this locality, owing to the fact, no doubt, of an abundance of raiu 
having fallen further south.— [M. W. Hand, Greene. 

Warm, damp weather is most favorable to the propagation of the cotton- worm of 
every species. Cool, damp weather (not cold) is most favorable for the increase of the 
cotton-lice, which do their mischief in May and June.- [David Lee, Lowndes. 



392 EEPORT UPON COTTON INSECTS. 

Sultry^ showery weather produces them. If we have a wet July and August we are 
sure to have them.— [H. A. Stollenwerck, Perry. 

Wet and cloudy weather are favorable to their multiplication ; dry and hot Aveather 
has the opposite effect.— [H. C. Brown, Wilcox. 

Wet weather seems to be favorable to the breeding of worms. — [George W. Thagard, 
Crenshaw. 

My observation is, the kind of weather makes no diJBference. — [James M. Harrington, 
Monroe. 

Damp and cloudy weather favorable; hot and dry weather unfavorable. — [Knox, 
Minge, and Evans, Hale. 

It is the generally entertained opinion that wet weather is most favorable for their 
production, but I am of the opinion that weather has but little to do with it. Oar 
summers are all wet enough in my judgmeut for them. They flourish best in hot 
weather. I have seen them multiply rapidly when there was not rain for more than 
four weeks, notably in 1873, in July, when there was no rain from the 16th of June 
until the 19th of July. — [R. W. Russell^ Lowndes. 

The prevalent idea among practical farmers is that a wet May and June is favorable 
to the development of the worms. My own experience is that from 1847 to 1800 wo had 
both wet and dnj seasons, and ijef no tconns. I do not believe the hygrometric condition 
of seasons produces them ; yet I do believe that a wet season favors their rapid pro- 
duction or increase. — [R. S. Williams, Montgomery. 

Warm, cloudy, and showery weather seems to best suit the work of tho worm ; it 
seems to bo more vigorous, and destroy the cotton sooner during such weather. — [J.N. 
Gilmore, Sumter. 

Don't think, weather exarts any influence on their propagation, &c., or on their ap- 
pearance, &c., from year to year. — [John D. Johnston, Sumter. 

ARKANSAS. 

The weather the preceding year and the year the worms are plentiful have a marked 
influence on their destructiveness. A mild, dry fall and winter followed by a damp, 
hot season is always favorable to moths and worms. — [E. T. Dale, Miller. 

Dry summers tend to an increase, at least from the l.'jth of July. In cold, wet sum- 
mers there there are very few, comparatively. — [T. S. Edwards, Pope. 

FLORIDA. 

Tho years that the insect has been most destructive, tho seasons have not been ex- 
cessive either for wet or dry. — [F. M. Meekin, Alachua. 
Most warm weather. — [R. Gamble, Leon. 

GEORGIA. 

I have seen the worm in both dry and wet seasons, and the only difference noticed 
was that in wet seasons the growth of the cotton was more luxuriant, and the worms 
had more to feed upon. — [William Jones, Clarke. 

We are of the ojjinion that the weather has but little influence upon the migration 
of the parent of the caterpillar. — [S. P. Odom, Dooly. 

I do not recollect that the weather had any efl'ect upon them ; the cotton was very 
tall, and a good seasonable year for crops, I think. — [E. M. Thompson, Jackson. 

Cloudy weather is the time for the worm ; they canuot stand the hot sun. — [W. A. 
Harris, Worth. 

Warm weather, moderately dry, with heavy dews, and nights very warm, is favor- 
able to the worm. When cool nights set in the worm webs up and disappears. — [M. 
Kemp, Marion. 

Weather that favors a late growth of the cotton-plant is favorable to an increase of 
the worm. — [A. J. Cheves, Macon. 

Wet summers have proven to be favorable. — [D. P. Luke, Berrien. 

In dry hot weather the increase is slow. — [Timothy Fussell, Coffee. 

LOUISIANA. 

Worms do not do much damage during very hot dry weather. They remain on tho 
underside of the leaf, especially so when young, aud eating only in the morning and 
evening. Damp stormy weather is necessary for the full development of their destruc- 
tive powers. — [H. B. Shaw, Concordia. 

We have no printed or written records, that I am aware of, accessible to our people, 
and I cannot say what the seasons were in former times, before and during the preva- 
lence of the army worm. Our people are not learned, or scieutitic, as a rule, outside 
of professional walks of life, and the only article I ever recollect to have read on the 
army worm, written by one of our people, was written by a Dr. Gorham, aud pub- 
lished in Do Bow's Review, New Orleans, after 1841. This is no doubt among my 
father's books, in his library here, but I have no access to it at present. I mention 
this in order that you may cause the article to bo looked ui) and referred to. Dr. Gor- 



APPENDIX II ANSWERS TO CIRCULAR. 393 

bam insisted, as well as I can remember, that the cotton-worm was wafted here during 
times of high rains, from certain (inarters of couijiass, from Central America or other 
more southern countries, where it was always to be found, and where tlio cotton plant 
grew perenially. My experience is, that during dry summers and falls, the worms 
never appear early enough to destroy the plant "before a fair crop is made.— [Douglas 
M. Hamilton, West Feliciana. 

The insect is not atfected by the weather.— [Dr. I. U. Ball, West Feliciana. 

When the worms appear, neither wet nor dry weather affects them any way. — [John 
A. Marj-man, East Feliciana. 

MISSISSIPPI. 

Warm, cloudy and wet weather always favorable to the coming of the insect. — [John 
C. Russell, Madison. 

Rainy spring and summer always produces this worm. — [J. W. Burch, Jefferson. 

I cannot say they are affected by weather. Some of the years mentioned as destruc- 
tive years were just opposites, as ior instance, 1876 and 1878; 1876 was cool and. dry, 
1878 wet and very warm. — [C. F. Sberriod, Lowndes. 

Extremely heavy rains destroy some of the worms, and perhaps some of the moths. 
The worms cannot endure exposure to the unobstructed rays of the sun in the warm 
part of the day. The influence of these two causes is not large enough to be of much 
importance. — [C. Welch, Covington. 

1 think showery weather in June tends to increase their breeding considerably ; cool 
weather at that time and later assists. The plant must be growing so that there are 
tender leaves on the top of the plant to favor their increase. If not growing and the 
leaves become toughened from hot dry weather the worms do not damage it.— [Daniel 
Cohen, Wilkinson. 

Cloudy and wet weather in July and August invariably brings the fly. If we have 
a seasonable July, say one or two good rains and none in August, we always make fair 
crops of cotton. — [Kenneth Clarke, Chickasaw. 

The moth seems to delight in warm cloudy damp weather, leaving its retreat more 
readily when the atmosphere i^ in that condition. In clear weather and hot sunshine 
they keep very close until twilight, when they may be found flitting from plant to 
plant. The larvae, like the moth, seems to prefer cloudy hot weather, but hot dry 
weather does not seem to check their devastations. Heavy rain-storms certainly do 
check them. Cool weather seems to retard their operations. — [Dr. E. H. Anderson, 
Madison. 

May and June very wet, cloudy, and moderately warm will invariabli/ br'nif/ this insect 
in such numbers that (the same conditions^ continuing in July and August) the crop 
will certainly be destroyed. Any careful observer can, by the close of June, any year, 
at any given locality, decide whether the Aletia am increase to such uuuibersasto 
damage the crop seriously duriug the succeeding mouths. This has been done annually 
lor the last thirty years without a single failure. — [D. L. Phares, Wilkinson. 

Rainy weather and hot sunshine alternating. — [W. Spillman, Clarke. 

1 know from loug experience and close observation that continuous rains in the 
month of July bring to notice the worms. The winter has nothing whatever to do 
with the ajixjearance of this destructive insect. — [George V. Webb, Amite. 

NORTH CAROLINA. 

Wet weather seems to produce them when it is very warm. — [F. J. Smith, Halifax. 

SOUTH CAROLINA. 

When the worm does appear here, it is in a wet warm summer, and it appears first 
in black soil, which is low and damp. In gray soil they never come until after they 
have grown and been propagated on the darker soil— [Paul S. Felder, Orangeburgh. 

Moist and cloudy weather is most favorable to the rapid development of the in- 
sect.— [J. W. Grace, Colleton. 

Dry hot weather is unfavorable to the growth, production, and activity of the 
worm. — [James C. Brown, Barnwell. 

TENNESSEE. 

So far as I have observed, the we.ather exerts a decided influence upon the cotton 
caterpillar.— [A. W. Hunt, M. D., Perry. 

TEXAS. 

Dry hot weather is unfavorable.— [R. Wlpprecht, Comal. 

The only effect is— heat advances, cold retards maturity.— [W. Barnes, Cherokee. 

Wet sultry weather most favorable to the increase of the worm.— [S. B. Tackaberry, 
Polk. 

I do not believe the weather has much to do with them, because this has been the 
wettest year for a long time past, and they did very little damage in this part of the 
country.'— [P. S. Watts, Hardin. 



394 REPOET UPON COTTON INSECTS. 

As previously stated, the season moderately wet, or more than ordinarily so, the 
miller or butterfly is pretty certain to make its appearance in July, a few weeks before 
the egg is deposited. — [O. H. P. Garrett, Washington. 

After the worm has once made its appearance, the kind of weather does not seem to 
affect its further development much unless the summer is very hot and dry, in which 
case the young ones will soon be killed, and even many of the full-grown ones will 
perish before they are ready to spin themselves in. — [A. Schroeter, Burnet. 

The worm has made its appearance during wet years, and the dry seasons of the 
year have also witnessed its coming. I believe that a very dry spring will retard ita 
appearance, for in that case it will be more difficult to wake themselves from their 
winter sleep. — [P. S. Clarke, Waller. 

The weather undoubtedly has an influence on the insect, otherwise we would have 
them every year; but as it is we have but few years of the worm. It is true that a 
few make their appearance other years in isolated places, but not enough to attract 
attention. — [J. M. Glasco, Upshur. 

We know that when we have a verv wet spring and summer we are sure to be 
troubled with the worm.— [W. T. Hill,"Walker. 

After the worm has batched in sutlicient numbers to injure the plants (this being 
only the case in the latter part of spring and in summer) the weather being warm 
does not allect the worm particularly. Only a long and j>rotracted drought will re- 
tard the hatching of the eggs, as in 183U, when a severe four mouths' drought pre- 
vented the hatching of a second brood. — [J. H. Krancher, Austin. 

My memorandum books show wet and warm weather iu lri4G, particularly. — [C. B. 
Richardson, Rusk. 

My experience is that wet summers generate the cotton-worm, as it does most others 
of the insect tribes. — [A. Underwood, Brazoria. 

If the month of June is dry it is a good indication that the worms will not hurt the 
crop or if Ihey do come it will be late. — [Stephen Harbert, Colorado. 

My experience is that warm cloudy weather is more favorable to the moth in giving 
it more tin)o in daylight to dejjosit its eggs, consequently more latitude is taken dur- 
ing its laying season. — [J. W. Jackson, Titus. 

They multiply much faster in wet weather owing to the earth being damp and cool. 
They are on the move all the time. They rarely ever do much damage in hot dry 
weather, as the moths perish for want of water, and the heat of the snn and earth 
kills thousands of the young and eggs. They are not dreaded much in dry weather. — 
[Natt Holman, Fayette. 



Question 2a. — Ilic character of seasons most farorahle to its increase. 

ALABAMA. 

Warm, damp, cloudy weather. — [I. F. Culver, Bullock. 

Wet cloudy weather. — [R. S. Williams, Montgomery. 

The character of seasons most fa\'orable for the increase of the worms are such as 
promote the tender succulent condition of the leaves of the cotton i)lant, viz, frequent 
rains and consequent humidity. — [P. T. Graves, Lowndes. 

The seasons that the worms have been most abundant are almost invariably wet 
during the latter part of the summer, yet the season of 1H70 was an exception to thia 
rule. The worms made their appearance early during this year. — [R. F. Henry, 
Pickens. 

Warm, wet weather. — [J. A. Callaway, Montgomery. 

In wet seasons they are more abundant and destructive. — [H. Tutwiler, Hale. 

Such is the influence of the weather on the propagation of the worm that we confi- 
dently expect them when July and August happen to be rainy, showery, or damp and 
cloudy. — [Dr. John Peurifoy, Montgomery. 

Have not been able to discriminate. — [James M. Harrington, Monroe. 

A wet May and June especially favorably to their development— [Charles M. How- 
ard, Autauga. 

Wet and cloudy. — [H. C. Brown, Wilcox. 

I do not think that wet or dry has anything to do with them during spring, or say 
tip to June. — [J. C. Matthews, Dale. 

They do not increase in warm, dry, clear weather, but always in sultry, rainy 
weather. — [H. A. Stollenwerck, Perry. 

If seasonable in late spring and early summer, throughout the cotton-belt generally, 
we are almost certain to have a full and early crop of the insect. — [M. W. Hand, 
Gieene. 

Weather cloudy, warm and damp. — [A. D. Edwards, Macon. 

Warm and wet. — [David Lee, Lowndes. 

The caterpillar increases when the dews are heavy, when the seasons are rainy, when 



APPENDIX II ANSWERS TO CIRCULAR. 395 

the wind is from east- southeast. There must be, in my opinion, both moisture in the 
atmosphere and on the i'oliajfe, or much sap in the foliatje to i)reserve the lips of the 
freshly-hatched caterpillar from the heat of the sun. — [J. W. DuBose, Moutyomery. 

Wet. — [Knox, Minge, and Evans, Hale. 

Warm and cloudy weather is more favorable to the increase of the caterpillar than 
hot and dry, for the reason that in warm, cloudy, or rainy days the cotton-lly is busy 
flying — either hunting mates or laying eggs. In dry or hot days they are Keen only 
late in the evening or very eaiiy in the morning. It is generally believed that they 
do not move about much at night — little or none after 9 p. m. Hot sun is necessary 
for hatching the eggs. After the h;itching, neither the hot sun nor dry weather can 
check or prevent their maturity and rapid develojiment. — [H. Hawkins, Barbour. 

If June is wet or there is much raiu the caterpillar is looked for with certainty. — 
[Andrew Jay, Conecuh. 

They increase most rapidly in warm, damp, cloudy weather. — [R. B. Duulap, 
Greene. 

Warm, seasonable, growing weather. — [C. C. Howard, Autausa. 

When the weather is warm and showery, calculated to promote a luxuriant and ten- 
der growth of the cotton-weed, there seems to be more worms generated, or, at least, 
they eat the cotton-plant foliage iu a shorter rime. — [John D. Johnston, iSumter. 

Eighteen hundred and sixty-nine, 71, 7;?, 74, 76, were known as wet seasons in the 
canebrake of Marengo during the spring and early summer. In 1872 it did not rain 
on my crop from April 9 until May 27, yet the caterpillar appeared June 16. Tbe season 
(summer) was at no time excessively wet. In 1874 it did not rain from July until 
September 14, yet meanwhile the caterpillar came in great numbers. In 1876, the 
spring aud entire summer were iinprecedentedly wet, yet on my crop the caterpillar 
did not appear until August 1, or thereabout. — [J. W. Du Bose, Montgomery. 

The past year they made their appearance in June aud continued to increase by pe- 
riods until about the 15th or 20tli of August, when they slowly ate the crop ; but they 
did it so slowly as to do but slight damage, notwithstanding it was a remarkably wet 
and hot summer. — [R. W. Russell, Lowndes. 

Rather inclined to think they increase more rapidly iu damp weather. — [J. F. Smith, 
J. F. Calhoun, Dallas. 

Warmclondy weather is decidedly more favorable to its increase, particularly warm 
nights. — [J. N. Gilmore, Sumter. 

ARKANSAS. 

Warm springs, with a great deal of south wind, some rains, thotigh not heavy, with 
a constant increase of heat as the summer advances. — [ T. S. Edwards, Pope. 
W.arm and wet. — [Norborne Young, Columbia. 
Damp or wet aud hot seasons. — [E. T. Dale, Miller. 

FLORIDA. 

Wet seasons seem to be most favorable to its increase. — [John B. Carrin, Taylor. 

Damp cloudy weather is most suitable to their increase. Hot dry weather is very 
depressing to them, and they are unfavorably affected in proportion as they are ex- 
posed to heat. — [J. M. McGehee, Santa Rosa. 

Wet. — [.lohn Bradford, Leon. 

The general impression here among farmers is that a wet season is favorable to the 
development of the insect. I do not entertain this view, but l)Blieve that excessive 
rain has a tendency to retard their development. The rains the present year have 
been excessive, and though the worm has eaten many fields of cotton, the destruction 
has not beeu general, but has been retarded, making it quite late in the season before 
the destruction was complete. — [F. M. Meekin, Alachua. 

Showery weather in June and July, after a mild winter. — [R. Gamble, Leon. 

GEORGIA. 

Cloudy, damp, or wet weather is most favorable to its increase. — [Timothy Fussell, 
Coifee. 

Rainy weather. — [D. P. Luke, Berrien. 

Wet seasonable years seem to be the most favor.able. — [E. M. Thompson, Jackson. 

Wet aud damp weather. — [William A. Harris, Worth. 

Warm seasonable weather during July and August, when there is rain and damp 
every three or four days. — [A. J. Cheves, Macon. 

Warm and moderately dry. — [M. Kemp, Marion. 

Seasonable rains which keep the foliage of the cotton green and tender is the kind 
of weather most favorable to its increase. The egg is always deposited on the top and 
tenderest leaves of the cotton, or cotton upon which the leaves are hard and tough.— 
[S. P. Odom, Dooly. 

LOUISIANA. 

Showery weather during the months of August and September. — [II. B. Shaw, Con- 
cordia. 



396 EEPOET UPON COTTON INSECTS. 

Wet weather is more favorable to its increase. — [Dr. I. U. Ball, West Feliciana. 
Wet weather is most favorable to its increase. — [John A. Marymau, East Feliciana. 

MISSISSIPPI. 

AUern.nte sunshine and showers, and damp, hot weather, with the thermometer 
ranging from 77° to 87° Fahr., seems to be the most favorable to its increase, especially 
when the rainfall is not sufficient to retard cultivation. — [Dr. E. H. Anderson, 
Madison. 

A warm mild winter for their increase, but if July and August are favorable to 
farmers, worms do but little damage. If the summers are so wet as to make the weeds 
grow very rank, they work on particular spots anyway.— '[Kenneth Clarke, Chickasaw. 

The character of seasons most favorable to their increase ? Kainy seasons. — [John 
C. Russell, Madison. 

It is generally believed that hot weather with light and frequent showers is mo&t 
favorable to the increase of the worm. — [C. Welch, Covington. 

Mild winter, wet spring and summer. — [J. W. Burch, Jefferson. 

Warm weather, neither too dry nor too wet, has always prevailed when the worm 
was most abundynt. — [J. Culbertson, Rankin. 

A favorable season for cultivating the crop. Damp, cloudy weather seems to favor 
them. — [I. G. G. Garrett, Claiborne. 

A rainy season is always most favorable to the increo.se of this pest oC the cotton. — 
[George V. Webb, Amite. 

NOUTII CAROLINA. 

Warm and wet. — [F. I. Smith, Halifax. 

SOUTH CAROLINA. 

Those wherein we have a very wet Juno, causing a luxuriant and pulpy state of the 
leaves, followed by clouJy and rather damp cool nights in July. — [James W. Grace, 
Colleton. 

A warm wet season. — [Paul S. Felder, Orangeburgh. 

Warm and moist weather most favorable. The moist or rainy season is unfavorable 
to insects that are enemies to the caterpillar; and the young, nutritious growth of 
cotton more abundant. — [James C. Brown, Barnwell. 

TENNESSEE. 

Warm, cloudy, and damp weather. — [A. W. Hunt, M. D , Perry. 

TEXAS. 

Warm weather with showers. — [R. Wipprecht, Comal. 

Mild winters and dry springs. — [P. S. Watts, Hardin. 

A warm season with plenty of rain, to call forth a profusion of young tender leaves, 
on which the newly hatched larvae can feed, is therefore most favorable for the increase 
of the insect. — [A. Schroeter, Burnet. 

Wet May and June. — [S. B. Tackaberry, Polk. 

There seems to be no difference. — [ W. Barnes, Ch<^rokee. 

Cloudy weather succeeding excessive rains. — [Samuel Davis, Hunt. 

A warm damp summer, without mucli heavy rain. — [J. M. Glascoe, Upshur. 

Wet seasons. — [H. J. H. Brensiug, Bowie. 

I once thought cold winters were proof against the worm. I have seen them fail 
after cold and warm winters alike. I have also seen them come and destroy the crop 
partly after cold and warm winters. In 1867 the crops were killed on the l'2th, 13th, 
and 14th of March, by freezing weather. There was snow, hail, .and rain, freezing, 
and we had three days of cold weather. The crops were planted the second time, and 
I think more rain fell that year than in any previous one of my experience during 
the months of Juno, July, and August. The worm appeared about the 20th of July, 
but not in force. — [O. H. P. Garrett, Washington. 

A moist and warm spring, and particularly frequent showers during June and July. — 
[J. H. Krancher, Austin. 

Warm wet weather.— [W. T. Hill, Walker. 

I cannot say what weather is favorable to their increase. I think the weather has 
little effect on them. — [C. B. Richardson, Rusk. 

The most unfavorable weather for them is a warm rainy season. — [S. Harbert, Col- 
orado. 

Cloudy or rainy season will hatch the eggs better than dry and clear we.ather, and 
when hatched cloudy or damp season favors the full development of the worm, and 
its ravages are greater, for it feeds the entire day. Otherwise, if the season is dry and 
hot, their progress is imi^eded, so much that it is often noticed by the casual observer. — 
[J. W. Jackson, Titus. 



APPENDIX II ANSWERS TO CIRCULAR. 397 

Question 2 b. — The character of Ike SKmnier and win fer — whelher wet or dri/, mild or seivre — 
that have preceded yearn in which the worm haa been abnndant and destructive. 

ALA15AMA. 

Upon this point we cannot speak positively, bub incline to the belief that dry, mild 
summers have preceded years in Avhich the worm has been destructive, aud that the 
character of the winters is immaterial. — [J. A. Callaway, Moutf^omery. 

I have no record of the character of the weather betore I8l)(j. The winder of ISGo- 
'66 was mild, with less than average rain. The spring from last of April to 10th of 
June, excessively wet; latter part of June and first of July, dry and hot ; last of July 
and to 20th August, rainy ; 18(58 much the same, except spring rains that were sea- 
sonable. The winter of 1872-'7o was severe for this latitude ; the spring dry, with ex- 
cessive wet through early summer, say to 1st of August. — [P. T. Graves, Lowndes. 

Average thermometer for December, January, February, and March: 1666, 47.03; 
1809,48.90; 1870,47.44; 1871,52.62; 1872,47.7. 

r.thr. 

In 1873, preceding winter severe 50. 86 

1874, preceding winter very mild 53. 05 

1875, preceding winter steady cold 54.05 

lH7(j, preceding winter very mild 50. 08 

1877, preceding winter uncommonly cold 48. 53 

1878, preceding winter mild 



Total fall of rain during December, January, and February : 

Inches. Inches. 

In 1873 20.07 

1874 ...15.11 



In 1868 18.41 

1869 2.J.83 

1870 17.32 

1871 15.58 

1872 22.17 



1875 20.92 

1876 21.03 

1877 8.20 



Total June, July, and August : 

Inches. Inches. 



In 1868 11.53 

1869 15.84 

1670 18.70 

1871 14.45 

1872 23.56 



In 1873 12.33 

1874 16.65 

1875 

1876 4.47 

1877 4.82 

[J. H. Smith aud J. H. Calhoun, Dallas. 
Cold, dry Avinters mostly.— [J. S. Hausberger, Bibb. 

It is pretty generally believed that severe winters are destructive to insects. As to 
the correctness of this idea I am a little doubtful, as the winter of 1869 was the cold- 
est we have had for ten years, yet in that year — that is, 1870— there were worms. Aud 
in 1876 the winter was much colder than 1877, yet in 1878 there were quantities of 
worms ; so I cannot say I believe the cold or wet has much to do with them. — [R. W. 
Russell, Lowndes. 

The winter of 1872 and '73 was unusually severe in this section, the thermometer 
sinking to 7° above zero. We all thought this would insure us against the worms, yet 
1873 was our most destructive worm year. Last winter was exceedingly mild, the 
thermometer reaching 32*^ only two or three times during the winter, yet the worms 
were not developed until late in the season, and did not do much harm to the crop.— • 
[R. S. Williams, Montgomery. 

Have seen them destructive following almost every character of winter and summer. 
Cannot say what kind of seasons preceded the worms in the years they were most de- 
structive. — [John D. Johnston, Sumter. 

The winter of 1872-'73 was moderately cold for this climate, as was the winter of 
1877-78. both of which years the worm was most destructive.— [R. F. Henry, Pickens. 

The winter of 1827-'28 was verj' warm and wet. It was so warm that peach trees 
bloomed every month during the winter ; but no cotton-worm the next summer. The 
winter of 1848-49 was another warm winter, and no worms the next year. Some say 
that when the winter is warm the moths hibernate so much and can get nothing to 
subsist upon that they perish of hunger. Others say that a cold winter freezes them 
to death ; so it is all speculation.— [D. Lee, Lowndes. 

Do Tiot think the preceding year has any influence on their coming. Think they are 
here all the time, aud the weather from May to September causes them to hatch out. 
If wet, we are sure to have them ; if dry, not so certain.— [H. A. Stolenwerck, Perry. 

It seems cold weather does not atfect them.— [H. C. Brown, Wilcox. 



398 REPORT UPON COTTOX INSECTS, 

Worm winteis, as tboy are to be seeu here in warm seasons in winter (I riiean the 
fly) —[J. C. Mathews, Dale. 

The conclusion is tli.it ihe preceding winter ha§ very little to do with their propa- 
gation.— [Charles M. Howaid, Autauga. 

Mild. — [A. D. Edwards, Macon. 

No difference. — [James M. Harrington, Monroe. 

If the weather is dry I'lom the loth of July to the 15th of August, worms do but lit- 
tle damage to cotton. — [George W. Thagard, Crenshaw. 

The summer and fall of 186.5 were very dry ; the caterpillar was destructive in 18C6. 
The summer and fall of 18(j6 were very wet; the caterpillar was very destructive in 
1867. The spring and early summer of 1869 were wet; no caterpillars in L^TO; not 
many in 1871. The year 1871 wet ; caterpillars eat up the crops by August 10, 1872. 
The year 1872 a dry one; caterpillars early and very destructive in 1878. The year 
1875 very dry ; caterpillars unequaled in 1876. — [I. W. Du Bose, Montgomery. 

Mild, warm winters preceding the crops indicate favorable season lor cotton so far 
jis the caterpillar is concerned, as the moth comes forth in warm days and many of them 
perish for want of food.— [I. D. Driesbach, Baldwin. 

Wet summers followed by diy fall and mild winter. — [P. D. Bowles, Conecuh. 

Mild winters, wet springs, and hot summers, though we have had one or two excep- 
tions. — [M. W. Hand, Greene. 

A wet May followed by July and August showery is the most favorable summer for 
the worms. The winter has no efl'ect on them. — [Knox, Minge, and Evans, Hale. 

Dry summers and mild winters; 1872 was very dry and the winter following very 
mild, and in 187:5 there was the most destruction we have had by the caterpillar. — 
[H. Hawkins, Barbour. 

My opinion is that the season following a cold winter we have less worms than we 
do after a mild winter. — [R. B. Dunlap, Greene. 

We regard our severest cold winters as being the best preventive to their appear- 
ance the next year in injurious numbers. I think the years when their ravages have 
been great nre tho.se following a mild winter; but with little weather very cold, they 
have been most certain to prevail the mxt year if the season in other respects is favor- 
able to their increase, to wit, wet and cbiudy. — [Andrew Jay, Conecuh. 

More destruct ive after a uniformly cold winter; I think they are sometimes destroyed 
by freezing weather after two or three weeks of warm weather in winter. — [J. R. Rogers, 
Bullock. 

Summer dry and hot, winter mild and dry.— [J. F. Culver, Bullock. 

The summers when the worm has been most abundant have been wj>rm, and more 
than the usual <iuantity of rain fell. The winters have been various. The worm has 
come both afier mild wet winters, and cold dry winters. 1 am satisfied that the pre- 
ceding winter has nothing to do with the presence or absence of the worm the follow- 
ing summer. — [J. N. Gilmore, Sumter. 

AKKAXSAS. 

Mild weather and dry through fall and winter.— [E. T. Dale, Miller. 

Dry and mild.— [Norborne Young, Columbia. 

The winters have been very mild i)receding the years they have been so destructive 
and abundant; in fact scarcely any winter at all, the ground not frozen two inches 
deep during the winter, and the summer before also waim autl dry. — [T. S. Edwards, 
Pope. 

FLORIDA; 

A mild winter, which is generally a wet one. — [R. Gamble, Leon. 

GEORGIA. 

"Very cold, damp weather, with but little sunshine. This for the most part has been 
a veiy hot summer, and hence luit few worms. — [William A. Harris, Worth. 

Moderately wet and mild.— [S. P. Odom, Dooly. 

Waim summers and severe winters.— [William Jones, Clarke. 

Wet summers are most favorable. — [Timothy Fussell, Coffee. 

The summer and winter were wet and mild; no very cold weather. — [E. M. Thomp- 
son, Jackson. 

Mild winters. — [M. Kemp, Marion. 

LOUISIANA. 

I have noticed no difTerence; the winter of 1876-77 was as waim as we generally 
have, and the worms stripped everything. Again, last winter, 1877-78, was very mild, 
and the fields look as bare as in December. Now of the summer, wo generally suffer 
most during a wet summer.— [II. B. Shaw, Concordia. 

During the past fourteen years, during which time the worms have been here in 
numbers almost every year, we have had winters as severe as common in this latitude. 



APPENDIX II ANSWERS TO CIRCULAR. 399 

The Trinter just past was an exceptional one for coldness, and still the worms have 
annually appeared. But in all years when they have done most damage the summers 
and fall were unusually wet.— [Douglas M. Hamilton, West Feliciana. 

From my best recollection the summer was pleasant and dry, the winter mild and 
•wet.— [Dr. I. U. Ball, West Feliciana. 

The summers preceding are generally dry, and winter variable.— [John A. Mary- 
man, East Feliciana. 

MISSISSIPPI. 

Having kept no memorandum of weather, cannot say as to character of preceding 
summers or winters when the worm has been destructive ; but nothing in the history 
of the worm has induced me think that its invasion depended upon the character of the 
preceding seasons. Yet my opinion would be that it would be more apt to appear after 
a mild winter. — [Dr. E. H. Anderson, Madison. 

Late springs, when cotton gets a late start, the stalk being succulent and sappy 
when they attack its leaves, and with but little matured fruit on it, the worms prove 
most disastrous. — [C. F. Sherriod, Lowndes. 

Some kinds of cotton are more attractive to worms than others. Cotton with short 
branches and rich foliage, such as the Dickson and Sugar-loaf, which forms a thick 
shade near the main stalk, is in greater danger than cotton with long or scattering 
branches. During a dry year the Dickson beats all other cottou, but during a wormy 
year it amounts to nothing in this locality. — [Kenneth Clarke, Chickasaw. 

Winters that have been mild are followed by the worm more abundant and destruc- 
tive. Last winter with us very mild, the spring very wet, the summer very hot or 
wet, and a big crop of worms from July as the result. — [John C. Russell, Madison. 

Hot and moist.— [J. W. Burch, Jefierson. 

Summers wet and mild, winters severe ; I have never seen them so numerous in sum- 
mers following warm, open winters. This I regard as one indication that they hyber- 
nate here to a limited extent. When not benumbed by cold, vitality and activity are 
aroused in the moth, and during " warm spells" it must sally forth to seek food. In 
these flights it may be captured by birds, benumbed by cold air, or otherwise pre- 
vented reaching its safe retreat, or, as often occurs to bees, the " warm spells " would 
tend to mature the chrysalis also, and hatch eggs preaiaturely, thus causing their de- 
struction by cold, want of food, &c. We frequently see moths of various species ven- 
ture out during winter and perish by these means. — [D. L. Phares, Wilkinson. 

The winter of lS76-'77, as well as the summer of 1-T7, was unusually dry, the rains 
nearly all being quite light. The winter of lS77-7.:5 was perhaps as to moisture an 
average winter, but the summer of 1878 was remarkable for the number of extraordi- 
nary heavy rains that fell up to the 1st of July, when they were succeeded by drought 
for from three to five weeks, ordinary weather following. The winter of ld7G-'77 was 
very cold; that of l':;77-'78 was the most regular that has come in thirty years; the 
spring and summer until July 1 were unusually cool; but after July 1 the weather 
was the hottest remembered. The injury in ld77 was much greater than in 1S78. — 
[C. Welch, Covington. 

The year 1873 was a most destructive one ; the winter preceding that, 1872-73, was 
as cold a winter as any I have known for years. — [Daniel Cohen, Wilkinson. 

The summers of lSo7 and 1878 were the two wettest since the worm first made its 
appearance. — [Samuel Scott, Madison. 

The character of the preceding winter or summer does not seem to have had any in- 
fluence on the worm. — [J. Culbertson, Rankin. 

They are thought to be most abundant after a mild winter. — [W. Spillman, Clarke. 

As a rule a dry summer has preceded the year the worm put in his appearance, but 
I do not believe that has any influence on the worm ; but continuous rains will bring 
the worms to the cotton-fields. — [George V. Webb, Amite. 

XORTII CAROLINA. 

The worm always appears after a long wet spell in August and September. — [J. 
Evans, Cumberland. 

Cold or mild winter has no eff"ect. — [F. I. Smith, Halifax. 

SOUTH CAROLINA. 

The summers have generally been warm and rather dry ; the springs opening early, 
so that the cotton would be well grown and advanced toward maturity at an early 
date ; as to the winters nothing uniform has been noticed, and we believe that this in 
no way atfects the worm.— [James W. Grace, Colleton. 

Warm and wet summers and a mild and dry winter are apt to be favorable to a good 
"crop" of the caterpillar. — [James C. Brown, Barnwell. 

TENNESSEE. 

A mild winter, accompanied by a good deal of snow, with a sttmmer succeeding as 
described in 2 a, have preceded years in which the worms have been most abundant 
and destructive.— [A. \V. Hunt, Perry. 



400 REPORT UPON COTTON INSECTS. 



Wet and mild. — [R. Wippreclit, Comal. 

Wet and mild.— [H. J. H. Brensiu<!;, Bowie. 

They are most certain to come if June and July are wet. I do not think wet or dry- 
winters have much influence with them. — [0. H. P. Garrett, Washington. 

A mild winter has nearly always preceded the early appearance of the moth. — [A. 
Schroeter, Burnet. 

Generally a dry summer, but not always so. I believe it depends mostly on June, 
July, and August weather.— [J. M. Glasco, Upshur, 

From careful observation, we are of the opinion that cold winters have but little in- 
fluence on the worm. — [S. B. Tackaberry, Polk. 

They have followed both the years of drought and of copious rains. The last winter 
was so mild that it was claimed by some that the worms wouhl not make their appear- 
ance ; that the moth would come early, deposit its eggs, and the caterpillar would 
have to die of starvation, there being nothing to feed upon. — [?• S. Clarke, Waller. 

Have not found the winter to have much eflect on the moth. We have learned to 
foretell the certainty and severity of the worm by May and June. If those months 
are warm and very wet we are certain to have the worm. — [W. T. Hill, Walker. 

A cold winter preceding a moist and warm spring and summer is favorable to the 
multiplication and increase of the worm, the appearance of the fly or miller being 
prevented by cold weather in winter, while in mild winters the moths frequently ap- 
pear. Have noticed them in January, when no food being found they would die of 
starvation, or the cold winds and rains would destroy them. It has been noticed that 
mild wiuters the worm does not appear early and is not sufficiently numerous to strip 
the fields until the boll has ripened. — [J. H. Krancher, Austin. 

My book showed excessive wet weather (ill summer of 184n, before the first season 
of woruis in September in Louisiana. — [C. B. Richardson, Rusk. 

I cannot attribute anything occurring iu other than the warm season as atfecting 
the generation or protection of the cotton or army worm. In what form it exists iu 
the winter or all the year except two or three weeks of its appearance in summer and 
its devastation during that short period is unknown to me, and, so far as I know, has 
never been accounted for by practical or scientitic men. I do not think the origin is 
from distant torriil climates, where cotton is perennial, as they never destroy the cot- 
ton, I think, in tropical climes.— [A. Underwood, Brazoria. 

The summer wet and winters mild. — [Stephen Harbert, Colorado. 

They are more numerous iu a wet sitmmer and fall, and after a mild winter. They 
are never so bad after a cold winter, as it is more destructive to the moth in his win- 
ter quarters, which consist of driftwood, trash, rocks, blufi', banks, &c. — [Natt. Holman, 
Fayette. 

Wet summer and mild, dry winter have always preceded the cotton-worm in this 
locality. — [J. W. Jackson, Titus. 



Question 2 c. — Do wet summers favor its multiplication f 



We think not. — [J. S. Hausberger, Bibb. 

Yes.— [J. A. Callaway, Montgomery. 

They do.— [H. Tutwiler, Hale. 

Wet seasons seem to be essential to their multiplication. — [Dr. John Peurifoy, Mont- 
gomery. 

In my opinion wet summers are favorable to multiplication. — [R. B. Dunlap, Greene. 

They certainly do. — [H. Hawkins, Barbour. 

They do. — [Andrew Jay, Conecuh. 

I think they do. — [C. C. Howard, Autauga. 

As to the moth or tly, it is entirely unknown to us whether it is afl'ected by weather 
or not, but I incline to the opinion that it is not until it gets too cold for her. — [R. W. 
Russell, Lowndes. 

Wet summers almost always favor the multiplication of the cotton-worm.— [R. Fl 
Henry, Pickens. 

I think wet summers favor its multiplication.— [R. S. Williams, Montgomery. 

I have always thought so. — [John D. Johnston, Sumter. 

Inclined to think it does. — [J. H. Smith and J. F. Calhoun, Dallas. 

Unquestionably. — [P. T. Graves, Lowndes. 

It does — [I. F. Cttlver, Bullock. 

Wet summers favor its multiplication. — [J. N. Gilmore, Sumter. 

Wet summers do most certainly favor their multiplication. — [I. D. Dreisbach, Bald- 
win. 



APPENDIX II ANSWEES TO CIRCULAR. 401 

It is generally conceded by most farmers that a wet summer favors its multiplica- 
tiou. — [P. D. Bowles, Conecuh. 

I thiuk not. — [James M. Harrington, Monroe. 

Wet summers favor their multiplication. — [A. D. Edwards, Macon. 

They undoubtedly do. — [Charles M. Howard, Autauga. 

They do generally.— [M. W. Hand, Greene. 

They do.— [II. C' Brown, Wilcox. 

O, yes ! as before stated. Wet .June, July, and August they are much more destruc- 
ive. — [J. C. Matthews, Dale. 

The impression prevails generally thathotsummers, with long spells of damp, cloudy 
weather, favor the multiplication of the cotton-worm. — [K. 11. Powell, Bullock. 

This is a settled fact in this section. — [H. A. Stollenwerck, Perry. 

Yes. — [J. W. Du Bose, Montgomery. 

They do. — [David Lee, Lowndes. 

Yes. — [Knox, Minge, and Evans, Hale. 

ARKANSAS. 

Warm, wet spring and summer favors multiplication. — [E. T. Dale, Miller. 
Yes. — [Norborne Young, Columbia. 
I think not. — [T. S. Edwards, Pope. 

FLORIDA. 

Wet July and August favors their increase and their destructiveness. by making the 
plant tender. They eat more and grow larger in such weather. — [J. M. McGehee, 
Santa Rosa. 

It is the universal opinion that they do. — [J. Bradford, Tallahassee. 

They do.— [John B. Carrin, Taylor. 

So believed, the leaf being then more succulent and tender. — [R. Gamble, Leon. 

GEORGIA. 

Wet summers favor its multiplication. — [Timothy Fussell, Coffee. 

I do not think they do. — [William Jones, Clarke. 

They do. — [D. P. Luke, Berrien. 

They do. — [A. J. Cheves, Macon. 

They most assuredly do, in great quantities. — [William A. Harris, Worth. 

They do. — [M. Kemp, Marion. 

I think they do. — [E. M. Thompson, Jackson. 

Wet summers generally produce what is termed the " black rust," especially on low- 
lauds, thereby hardening the leaves and preventing the multiplication of the moth. — 
[S. P. Odom,Dooly. 

• LOUISIANA. 

Yes. — [H. B. Shaw, Concordia. 

Is is evident that wet summers favor their appearance and rapid increase, and very 
dry ones the reverse. — [Douglas M. Hamilton, West Feliciana. 

Wet summers favor its multiplication. — [Dr. I. U. Ball, West Feliciana. 

Wet summers favor its multiplication if the rain is continued through the last of 
July and first of August. — [John A. Maryman, East Feliciana. 

MISSISSIPPI. 

Most assuredly. — [J. W. Burch, Jefferson. 

I think not. — [C. Welch, Covington. 

Yes; beyond a doubt. — [D. L. Phares, Wilkenson. 

Heavy rains and continuous wet weather do not seem favorable to its develop- 
ment. It would seem that heavy rains would prevent the process of hatching, and if 
the eggs did hatch would destroy the young insects. I have never seen them appear 
during a protracted term of wet weather. — [Dr. E. H. Anderson, Madison. 

Undoubtedly. — [Daniel Cohen, Wilkenson. 

They do, in affording a succession of tender leaves for them to feed on. — [C. F, She- 
riod, Lowndes. 

I believe wet summers favor their multiplication. I think there was a drought here 
in one or part of both of the months of August and September of one of the years of 
1873, '74 or '75 that so destroyed them that they did but little injury that year.— [Sam- 
uel Scott, Madison. 

They do. — [John C. Russel, Madison. 

No. — [J. Culbertson, Rankin. 

Wet summers certainly do favor its multiplication. — [George V.Webb, Amite. 

NORTH CAROLINA. 

Never have them in the summer, — [F. I. Smith, Halifax. 
Yes. — [J. Evans, Cumberland. 

26 I 



402 REPORT UPON COTTON INSECTS. 

SOUTH CAROLIXA. 

They ucver appear in dry weather. — [Paul S. Felder, Grangeburgh. 

Undoubtedly yes. — [James W. Grace, Colleton. 

Wet summers do favor its multiplication. — [James C. Brown, Barnwell. 

TENNESSEE. 

Yes, if the rains are not too heavy. — [A. W. Hunt, M. D., Perry. 

TEXAS. 

Wet summers certainly do favor their multiplication. — [O. H. P. Garrett, Washing- 
ton. 

Yes; heavy rains injure the insect. — [R. Wipprecht, Comal. 

They do.— [S. B. Tackaberry, Polk. 

They do not. — [W. Barnes, Cherokee. 

Probably ; but I see when they make their appearance, whether wet or dry, they de- 
stroy all the plants before they stop. — [P. S. Watts, Hardin. 

Yes. — [H. J. H. Brensing, Bowie. 

A warm, damp summer, without much heavy rain, is the most favorable to its multi- 
pliatiou. — [J. M. Glasco, Upshur. 

Only by causing luxurious growth of the plant, while a dry year would make the 
leaves tough. — [P. S. Clarke, Waller. 

Yes, for II10 reason that the young worms will find during such seasons plenty of 
acceptable food in the tender leaves. As soon as these get hard and tou'^h in conse- 
quence of dry weather the worms can no longer subsist on them. — [A. Schroeter, Bur- 
net. 

In August, if the summers have been wet and the growth of the plant unusually 
large and full of sap. — [Samuel Davis, Hunt. 

Yes.— [W. T. Hill, Walker. 

They do. — [J. II. Krancher, Au.stin. 

I cannot say it does; although it was very wet before they appeared in 1846. — [C. 
B. Richardson, Rusk. 

Undoubtedly. — [A. Underwood, Brazoria. 

Wet summers are most favorable for their multiplication. — [Stephen Harbert, Colo- 
rado. 

Ye.fl.— [Natt. Holman, Fayette. 

Wet summers have always favored its development and increases its ravages in this 
locality. — [J. W. Jackson, Titus. 



Question 2 d. — Effect of different linds of irea iher on the eggs. 

■ ALABAMA. 

Damp and cloudy weather increases the worms. — [Dr. .lohn Peurifoy, Montgomery. 

The only effect of weather on the eggs is that produced by heat, retarding the hatch- 
ing or expediting it as the temperature is increased or lessened. Wet or dry does 
not affect them only so far as the temperature is influenced by it. — [P. T. Graves, 
Lowndes. 

Hot, clear weather does not seem to favor the propagation of the insect, while 
warm, cloudy weatber seems to favor it. — [R. F. Henry, Pickens. 

I do not know ; yet believe wet weatber favors their hatching. — [R. S. Williams, 
Montgomery. 

Have noted no change made on the eggs by the weather. — [John D. Johnston, 
Sumter. 

I doubt whether the weather affects the eggs, unless very cool weather does to some 
extent prevent their hatching. — [J. N. Gilmore, Sumter. 

We are of the opinion that hot, dry weather is most favorable for hatching the eggs. — 
[J. S. Hausberger, Bibb. 

Hot, moist weather is best suited to hatching of eggs. — [J. A. Callaway, Mont- 
gomery. 

Dry, hot weather not favorable to the hatching of eggs or increase of worms. — 
[J. D. Dreisbach, Baldwin. 

Extreme dry weather on sandy lands does retard their progress. I think the reflec- 
tion of the heat upon the eggs has a tendency to destroy them, whereas on bottom 
lands the plant protects the egg. — [James M. Harrington, Monrce. 

Hatch sooner in wet weather. — [Knox, Minge, and Evans, Hale. 

As the eggs are generally deposited on the under side of the leaf and on the more 
dense part of the stalk, without any positive knowledge on the subject, I am inclined 
to the opinion .that after they are deposited too strong rays of the suu upon the leaf 



APPENDIX II ANSWERS TO CIRCULAR. 403 

would be nnfavorablo, as well as not cnouffh of regular heated atmosphere; likewise 
too much damp weather. — [Andrew Jay, Coiiocnh. 

Warm, cloudy weather ia favorable for hatching of the eggs.— [R. B. Dunlap, 
Groeue. 

Eggs hatch better in warm, hot weather.~[H. Hawkins, Barbour. 

During the period of their increase the cotton is always sufficiently tender to sup- 
ply all the wants of the young insects, and I can't see what benefit rain would be to 
them ; that is, how it would facilitate their hatching, as it is a known fact that their 
eggs are deposited on the under side of the leaf, where no rain would reach them. — 
[K. W. Russell, Lowndes. 

The eggs are deposited on the under side of the leaf, near the middle of the stalk, 
■n here there is greater protection than elsewhere from rain, wind, and solar heat. The 
young worm feeds usually upon the under side of the leaf, and if the weather be hot 
and the leaf tough doubtless many perish. A hot spell of weather is always injurious 
to the young worm. — [Charles M. Howard, Autauga. 

They seem to propagate much more rapidly in hot, damp weather. — [M. W. Hand, 
Greene. 

The moth universally deposits all eggs on the under side of the leaf, which is not 
perceptibly ati'ected by either wet or dry hot weather. — [P. D. Bowles, Conecuh. 

Damp weather is supposed to be most favorable to the hatching of the eggs. — [A. D. 
Edwards, Macon. 

Warm, wet weather is favorable to the hatching of the eggs and growth of the 
larvae. Hot and dry weather kills many oti". — [David Lee, Lowndes. 

We think the damp, cloudy weather hatches them. If they are hatched out in dry 
weather they do not develop if the weather continues dry, but if not they are sure to 
develop and destroy the crop. — [A. H. Stolenwerck, Perry. 

They will hatch out in wet or dry but increase in wet weather. — [J. C. Matthews, 
Dale. 

ARKANSAS. 

Don't know. — [Norborne Young, Columbia. 

Eggs will mature in either wet or dry weather, though hot, moist weather seems 
most favorable. — [E. T. Dale, Miller. 

FLORIDA. 

The eggs seem to hatch out quicker in wet weather. I have noticed eggs which 
failed entirely to hatch out during hot, dry weather. — [John Bradford, Leon. 
Do not know. Very hot sun supposed to be injurious. — [R. Gamble, Leon. 

GEORGIA. 

Most numerous in damp weather. — [Morgan Kemp, Marion. 

The hot suns burn up a great quantity of the eggs. — [William A. Harris, Worth. 

I do not know that I ever noticed the eiiect of the weather upon the eggs. — [E. M. 
Thompson, Jackson. 

Hot and dry weather is unfavorable, cloudy and damp is favorable to the eggs. — 
[Timothy Fussell, Coffee. 

We think that very dry weather is injurious to the egg — [S. P. Odom, Dooly. 

LOUISIANA. 

Cannot say positively, but think that damp weather is most favorable to all stages 
except the moth. — [H. B. Shaw, Concordia. 

I do not think the weather affects the eggs in any way, as they are always depos- 
ited on the under side of the cotton leaf. — [John A. Maryman, East Feliciana. 

Weather doea not affect the eggs. — [Dr. I. U. Ball, West Feliciana. 

MISSISSIPPI. 

I have seen them numerous in hot, dry weather; also when in wet weather. — [C. F. 
Sherriod, Lowndes. 

Hot days and nights, with warm showers, are favorable to the rapid hatching of 
the eggs.— [John C. Russell, Madison. 

Eggs seem to germinate quicker when there are light rains, although not very ma- 
terially. — [J. W. Burch, Jefferson. 

Cool or hot, dry weather seems to retard the hatching of the egg. Alternate sun- 
shine and showers or heavy dews, when evaporation goes on rapidly, seems to be the 
most favorable, natural, or atmospheric condition.— [Dr. E. H. Anderson, Madison. 

Moist, cloudy, temperate weather promotes development. Dry, hot weather destroys 
their vitality. Both these statements apply also to the caterpillar, but more especially 
when very young. I cannot say what is the lowest temperature that either egg, cat- 
erpillar, chrysalis, or imago may survive. — [D. L. Phares, Wilkinson. 

Wet summers are conducive to hatching the worm.— [George V. Webb, Amite. 



404 EEPORT UPON COTTON INSECTS. 



SOUTH CAROLINA. 



Have not experimented on this subject, but there is no reason to suppose that the 
egg is much affected by the weather, as the leaf generally sufficiently guards it against 
rain, and there is always sufficient heat to hold it. — [James W. Grace, Colleton. 

Damp warm weather is more favorable to the production of eggs. The fly is more 
active and the ants less numerous. — [James C. Brown, Barnwell. 

TENNESSEE. 

Warm, cloudy weather insures a success of the egg crop. Heavy rains, with inter- 
vening intense heat, destroys the eggs. — [A. W. Hunt, Perry. 

TEXAS. 

I believe the eggs in order to batch require shade. Exposure to our sun will destroy 
their vitality.— [P. S. Clarke, Waller. 

Warmth advances, cold retards hatching from ten days, the earliest, to eighteen 
and occasionally twenty days, the latest. — [W. Barnes, Cherokee. 

Clear sky from 8 to 10 o'clock p. m., the time when the eggs are laid, is favorable. — 
[R. Wipprecht, Comal. 

Don't know that the weather has any effect on the eggs. — [S. B. Tackaberry, Polk. 

After the eggs are deposited I know of no weather, unless a frost, that will affect 
them. — [J. M. Glasco, Upshur. 

Should hot, dry weather come, the eggs or a portion of them will be destroyed. — 
[Samuel Davis, Hunt. 

I have thought hot, dry weather with a south wind through the day would destroy 
the egg, as the wind would turn the bottom of the leaf up and expose it to the rays 
of the sun. The egg is deposited on the under side of the leaf toward the top and 
tender part of the plant. Evenings that are cloudy are favorable for the egg to 
hatch ; the worm gets strength quicker and not so many destroyed by heat. Frequent 
rains will wash them off more or less. — [O. H. P. Garrett, Washiugton. 

The hatching of the eggs is only retarded and prevented by excessive heat and dry 
weather ; the condition necessary for the successful hatching being warmth and mois- 
ture; heavy dews or fogs being sufficient. — [J. H. Krancher, Austin. 

If the moth is there, the egg is sure to be laid and hatched, no matter how wet or 
dry the weather.— [W. T. Hill, Walker. 

The impression is that dry, hbt weather retards and diminishes this fatally de- 
structive army. — [A. Underwood, Brazoria. 

The wet, warm weather is more favorable to the eggs. — [S. Harbert, Colorado. 

After the eggs are deposited, if the weather is cloudy or rainy, the eggs will hatch 
entire, but if the season is dry and hot the eggs will not hatch evenly, and many will 
dry up and drop off or will be much delayed in hatching. — [J. W. Jackson, Titus. 

Dry weather a very good preventive. — [Natt. Holman, Fayette. 



Question 2e. — Effects of different Icinds of weather on the moth. 

ALABAMA. 

Sunshine, not rain, endangers the moth; cool weather depresses its activity and 
delays or protracts its egg- laying.— [P. T. Graves, Lowndes. 

Warm, cloudy weather is most favorable for the moth to deposit their eggs on the 
cotton-leaf. — [ J. A. Gilmore, Sumter. 

Cloudy and wet the best for them. — [I. F. Culver, Bullock. 

We think that warm, dry weather facilitates the increase of the moths, while cool, 
damp weather has a tendency to destroy them. — [J. S. Hausberger, Bibb. 

The moth may be affected by the weather, but, if so, we are not prepared to say to 
what extent. The general impression is that hot, moist weather is best suited to its 
propagation. — [J. A Callaway, Montgomery. 

Cloudy weather is their favorite time for laying eggs.- [Dr. John Peurifoy, Mont- 
gomery. 

None.— [Knox, Minge, and Evans, Hale. 

The favorite part of the stalk for the webbing-up, as we call it, of the caterpillar is 
among the top leaves ; and from this I conclude that the usual degree of the heat of 
the sun common at such season is conducive to a healthful condition of the moth. — 
[Andrew Jay, Conecuh. 

Warm, cloudy weather, moths most abundant. — [R. B. Dunlap, Greene. 

When the weather is warm and dry the moth is hid in the shade of the foliage of the 
cotton-plant until late in the evening. In wet weather it moves all day from place 
to place without regard to morning or evening. — [H. Hawkins, Barbour. 

They are more active in pleasant, growing weather. — [C. C. Howard, Autauga. 



APPENDIX II — ANSWERS TO CIRCULAR. 405 

In warm, cloudy weather we see a great many more, and they soem to be deposit iugdnr- 
ingclondy daytime, and can be seen in great numbers thronghout the day in cotton that 
is growing fast and has a tender foliage. When the sun shines warm and the weather 
is dry, you will find them flying late in the evening and after nightfall, but are seen 
very little in mid-day, unless in lowlands; never woodlands. — [John D. Johnston, 
Sumter. 

I do not believe the weather has much indnence on the moth. Do know that they 
live with little protection throughout the witiler.— [R. S. Williams, Montgomery. 

Judging from the fact that the moths come iu the house to a lamp as numerous on 
damp, wet nights as on hot, dry nights, I would say that no kind of weather, save 
the heavy fall of rain, tvill prevent them from t akiug their accustomed nightly strolls. — 
[P. D. Bowles, Conecuh. 

I know of nothing on this point beyond the fact that the moth is most active at 
night and early morning. It is quiet during the heat of the day. — [C. M. Howard, 
Autauga. 

Weather that is favorable to a vigorous growth of the cotton-plant in July and 
August causes the moth to increase proportionally. — [M. W. Hand, Greene. 

They will hatch out in wet or dry weather, but increase faster when it is wet. — [J. 
C. Mathews, Dale. 

Dry weather, I should say, was most favorable to the moth.— [A. D. Edwards, Ma- 
con. 

I see none. — [James M. Harrington, Monroe. 

No kind of summer weather will kill the moth. — [D. Lee, Lowndes. 

Dry weather, with hot sun, seems to destroy them — [H. C. Brown, Wilcox. 

Moist, warm, and cloudy weather most favorable for moths. — [I. D. Driesbach, 
Baldwin. 

ARKANSAS. 

Early springs, warm and dry, seem to favor and increase the moths. — [T. S. Edwards, 
Pope. 

Heavy storms will kill many moths. — [E. T. Dale, Miller. 
Cool weather checks them. — [Norborne Young, Columbia. 

FLORIDA. 

Cold weather injurious in proportion to its vigor.— [R. Gamble, Leon. 

GEORGIA. 

Wet weather seems to be favorable. — [D. P. Luke, Berrien. 

Cloudy and damp weather for the moth. — [T. Fussell, Cotfee. 

The hot sun kills them to a great extent. — [William A. Harris, Worth. 

Most numerous in damp weather. — [M. Kemp, Marion. 

I consider the dry weather most favorable to the moth. — [William Jones, Clarke. 

LOUISIANA. 

Should think that they would need dry weather.— [H. B. Shaw, Concordia. 
Weather does not affect the moths. — [Dr. I. U. Hall, West Feliciana. 

MISSISSIPPI. 

They enjoy best wet or moist temperate weather, which gives them food from 
plant secretions, decaying fruit, «S:c. When very dry and hot, these sources of food 
being cut off, they are forced to seek it in more exposed places even iu daytime. 
During the first half of September, 1878, they came nightly and daily in large num- 
bers to suck the sirup and cane-juice from my mill-pans, other vessels, and from the 
bagasse. They come in these large numbers, although there have been very few ca- 
terpillars iu my vicinity and no crops damaged this season by them, because, as we fore- 
saw and wrote wei'ks "before, the cotton-plant was not iu such ctnidition as To afford 
subsistence to the iusec^, either as caterpillar or imago.— [D. L. Phares, Wilkiuson. 

The moth appears to be busy most when the weather is pleasant, warm, or dry. — 
[John C. Russell, Madison. 

In warm, damp weather it seems to be full of animation, and torpid in cool weather. — 
[Dr. H. H. Anderson, Madison. 

Wet weather affords them more to eat and they remain longer.— [C. F. Sherriod, 
Lowndes. 

They seem to flourish regardless of season.— [J. W. Burch, Jefferson. 

Dry' weather causes the moth to disappear in the daytime.— [George V. Webb, 
Amite. 

SOUTH CAROLINA. 

Nothing but cold seems to hurt it.— [James W. Grace, Colleton. 

Cannot observe any difference on account of weather directly on the moths. From 



406 EEPORT UPON COTTON INSECTS. 

instinct tlioy seem to anticipate the advantages of circumstances to their broods, and 
are more or less vigorous accordingly in their propagation. — [James C. Brown, Barn- 
well. 

TEXNESSEE. 

Bright, warm weather most favorable to the moth. — [A. W. Hunt, M. D., Benson's 
Landing. 

TEXAS. 

They grow faster and commence their ravages sooner when the evenings are more 
or less cloudy. The heat does not affect them so much. They commence their work 
soon after hatched out near the top of the plant and work down. As they gather 
strength they attack the tougher parts of the plant. — [O. H. P. Garrett, Washington. 

The moths being shy, the chance to study their nature is rather difficult ; though 
heavy storms of wind and rain or cold nights will destroy them, I believe. — [J. M. 
Glasco, Upshur. 

No effects of weather on the moth are noticeable, except that cold, wet weather will 
retard the laying of tbe eggs a little. — [A. Schroeter, Burnet. 

They only fly in dry weather. Frost kills them. In wet weather they seek shelter. 
— [W. Barnes, Cherokee. 

Weather does not affect the moth. He never makes his appearance until the weather 
is suitable for his work. — [S. B. Tackaberry, Polk. 

Wet weather would be the most destructive. — [P. S. Watts, Hardin. 

Dry, favorable. Heavy rains kill the moth. — [Keed Wipprecht, Comal. 

Hot, dry weather will destroy the moth. — [J. Davis, Hunt. 

Cold and heavy rains and storms prove destructive to the moths.— [J. H. Krancher, 
Austin. 

All wet seasons suit the moth better than dry. — [W. T. Hill, Walker. 

Wet and dry, alternate rain and sunshine, seem to generate ; while hot and dry 
weather long continued retards and diminishes their early appearance and numbers. 
[A. Underwood, Brazoria. 

The effect of the weather on the moth does not seem to hurt them, as they live 
through our mild winters. — [S. Harbert, Colorado. 

Dry weather and cold. — [Natt. Holman, Fayette. 

A wet or damp season is more favorable to the full development of the moth. I 
saw, in 1868, when the second brood of moths was coming out (the season then being 
dry and hot), the chrysalis would dry and jiarch up after the jierfect moth was ready 
to come forth. — [J. W. Jackson, Titus. 



Question' 2 f. — Month of year u-hen greatest injury is done. 

ALABAMA. 

August, in this locality. — [J. S. Hausberger, Bibb. 

August. — [J. A. Callaway, Montgomery. 

On our bottom-lands the worm is most destructive in the last half of August. 
Upon upland they are cpiite uniform in making their appearance a week later, and 
by the 10th proximo the crop is devoured. — [Charles M. Howard, Autauga. 

Usually in .September. Cotton that is very forward escajies. It is supposed that 
Georgia suffers less than other States, because they hasten the crop by the use of fer- 
tilizers. 16138, September 14, I find the following memoranda in my diary : " The 
worms are committing great havoc on the cotton. They have eaten nearly all the 
leaves, and are now attacking the small bolls. Fields that were green a week ago 
have now scarcely a leaf left. The crop in this neighborhood will not be more than 
one-third. — [H. Tntwiler, Hale. 

August and September. — [Dr. John Peurifoy, Montgomery. 

The earlier they come in force the greater injury they do — perhaps heretofore in 
July. — [C. C. Howard, Autauga. 

The month of August is when the worm does most damage to the crop — that is, the 
earlier they come the more damage is done to rhe crop, and the later the least dam- 
age, for the crop has more time to mature. — [J. A. Gilmore, Sumter. 

If the destructive croj) is developed during the month of August the injury to the 
crop is great. — [R. S. Williams, Montgomery. 

From the middle of August to the middle of September. — [John D. Johnston, 
Sumter. 

August. — [P. T. Graves, Lowndes. 

August and September. — [J. H. Smith and J. F. Calhoun, Dallas. 

August. — [K. F. Henry, Pickens. 

August and first of Seiitember.— I. F. Culver, Bullock. 



APPENDIX II ANSWERS TO CIRCULAR. 407 

August is the month when they have done their greatest damage. — [R. W. Russell, 
Lowndes. 

From the 15th of August to tha 10th of September. — [H. C, Bro-vn, Wilcox. 

From the l.^th of August to the 15th of September. — [D. Lee, Lowndes. 

September. — [J. D. Driesbach, Baldwin. 

August. — [James M. Harrington, Monroe. i^ 

August. — J. C. Matthews, Dale. 

July and August. — [Knox, Minge, and Evans, Hale. 

When they appear in Juue to any considerable extent they are apt by September to 
become so numerous as to clean out our fields. We calculate always that the third 
crop or generation will clean our fields, and we count six weeks a generation from the 
time the caterpillar webs up until the egg hatches and the young worm begins to 
eat the leaf. Hence that brings us to September, but of course the time of the first 
appearance has much to do with the time when they eat ujiour fields. — [Andrew Jay, 
Conscuh. 

The most injury is done in July and August. The greatest injury done any year 
was in 1S73, eatiug up the crop in July. If they do not come till late in September 
they do but little harm.— [H. Hawkins, Barbour. 

The greatest injury is done in August and September. — [R. B. Dunlap, Greene. 

August and latter part of July. — [J. R. Rogers, Bullock. 

I never knew the caterpillar to attack cotton earlier than July. I have seen it on 
cotton in June, but evidently there must be a certain state of material of the plant 
before the worm will eat. It may be said, therefore, that July — the latter part — is ihe 
earliest season in this latitude that damage is done. — [J. W. Du Bose, Montgomery. 

In my immediate locality, during the month of September, between the 5th and 
15th if the crop is forward, and from the 10th to the 30th, if the crop is backward. 
They benefit us, coming after the first of October, when the plant has a vigorous 
growth, by cutting ofl" the leaves and exposing the bolls to the sun, a great many of 
which would otherwise fail to mature. — [M. W. Hand, Greene. 

In August and early in September ; much more destruction, however, in August, as 
less of the crop is then mature. — [R. H. Powell, Bullock. 

The greatest injury is done during August and September — dependent on localities. — 
[A. D. Edwards, Macon. 

There cannot be any doubt in this section but that the month of August is when the 
greatest injury is done to cotton by the worm. — [P. D. Bowles, Conecuh. 

August and September. — [H. A. Stolenwerck, Perry. 

ARKANSAS. 

During August, in the full of the moon, worms are most destructive. — [E. T. Dale, 
Miller. 
From the 10th of July to the 15th of August.— [T. S. Edwards, Pope. 
August and September. — [Norborue Young, Columbia. 

FLORIDA. 

August is the month, in this section, in which the greatest destruction has been 
done. I have never known cotton materially injured by the caterpillar earlier here, 
and of course any time later is less destructive. The later the destruction the less the 
damage, as withered and nearly matured bolls are all that escape destruction.— [F. M. 
Mcekiu, Alachua. 

July and August. The top crop, which is made in the last days of August and to 
the lOth of September, is never injured to much extent by the worm.— [J. M. McGee- 
hee, Santa Rosa. 

August. — [John Bradford, Leon. 

July. — [John B. Carrin, Taylor. 

July and August— formerly August and September ; difference caused by earlier ma- 
turity of cotton, attributed to improved seeds.— [R. Gamble, Leon. 

GEORGIA. 

When the moth appears in the mouth of August it does the greatest injury. When 
appearing in the latter part of September or October it does but little damage, as all 
blooms after September 15 never reach perfection.— [S. P. Odom, Dooly. 

September.— [E. M.Thompson, Jackson. 

July and August.— [A. J. Cheves, Macon. 

July and August.— [William A. Harris, Worth. 

August and September. — [M. Kemp, Marion. 

Last of June and July.— [D. P. Luke, Berrien. 

July and September. — [Timothy Fussell, Coffee. 

September.- [William Jones. Clarke. 



408 EEPORT UPON COTTON INSECTS. 

XOUISIANA. 

August and September. — [H. B. Shaw, Concordia. 

Wbeu they appear early the greatest is done in July. — [Dr. I. U. Ball, West Feli- 
ciana. 
The gi^atest injury is done in August. — [John A. Maryman, East Feliciana. 

MISSISSIPPI. 

The month of September. When their appearance is made late in August, I con- 
sider that one entire month's making of the cotton crop is destroyed. The top fruit 
of the cotton and its entire last makings are cut short completely by the worm. — 
[John C. Russell, Madison. 

They make their appearance in this locality abont the 20th of July in limited quan- 
tities. The crop of worms that do most damage make their api)earance between the 
6th and 10th of September. They have done this with remarkable uniformity, it being 
immaterial what kind of weather we have. — [C. F. Sherriod, Lowndes. 

Most generally September. Sometimes much damage is done in October; oftener 
and greater in August. In a few instances the crop has been destroyed in July, and 
once or twice in June. — [D. L. Phares, Wilkinson. t 

September most destructive, but every year I have some cotton raten out the last 
of August, but worms not insufficient numbers to eat the whole crop.— [Daniel Cohen, 
Wilkinson. 

About August. — [William T. Lewis, Winston. 

August. — [C. Welch, Covington. 

In September.— [Samuel Scott, Madison. 

From Ihe 15th of July to the 15th of September.— [J. W. Bnrch, Jefferson. 

The last of August and September.— [Dr. E. H. Anderson, Madison. 

The greatest activity is generally seen in September, but to be injurious the leaves 
of the plants must be stripped in August.— [J. Culbertson, Rankin. 

August and September. — [W. Spillman, Clark. 

In the month of September. — [George V. Webb, Amite. 

NORTH CAROLINA. 

September; very little injury. — [F. I. Smith, Halifax. 
September. — [J. Evans, Cumberland. 

SOUTH CAROLINA. 

If cotton is ydanted as late as June, it is more apt to be attacked by worms in the 
fall, say September, when the older cotton entirely escapes. — [Paul S. Felder, Orange- 
burgh. 

From the 1st of August to the middle of September.— [James W. Grace, Colleton. 

The greatest damage is done in August. When they make their appearance after 
the 15th or 20th of August, it is too late for them to be destructive.— [James C. Brown, 
Barnwell. 

TENNESSEE. 

September.— [A. W. Hunt, M. D., Perry. 

TEXAS. 

This year in October. First crop appears sometimes as early as the 10th of July, 
but not numerous; second crop in about thirty days (ten days chrysalides, ten days 
flies, and ten days eggs, on the average) ; in which cases greatest injury occurs from 
the 1.5th of August to the 15th of September. — [W. Barnes, Cherokee. 

They usually make their appearance from the 15th to the last of August, and finish 
up their work' by the 5th of September. They hardly ever come in force for eighteen 
or twenty days from the time first discovered. They first web up and hatch a second 
generation ; then the work is soon done. They generally do their work in this county 
(Washington) from the 25th of August to the 7th of September.— [0. H. P. Garrett, 
Washington. 

The injury is dependent on the stage of maturity of the crop. Should they come in 
June they will destroy it. This year they ate all "the leaves the latter part of August 
and September, doing no damage to the crop ; in some instances they were a benefit. — 
[P. S. Clarke, Waller. 

July.— [S. B. Tackaberry. Polk. 

July and August.- [R. Wipprecht, Comal. 

Latter part of July and first of August.— [P. S. Watts, Hardin. 

July and August.- [H. J. H. Brensing, Bowie. 

July. — A. Schroeter, Burnett. 

July and August are the months of greatest damage, but generally August. If July 
gets hot and dry, and the cotton commences shedding the leaves, then through August 
the worm disappears. — [J. M. Glasco, Upshur. 



APPENDIX II ^ANSWERS TO CIRCULAR. 409 

August. — [Samuel Davis, Hunt. 

lu Juno, July, and August. — [J. H. Krancher, Austin. 

In August.— [W. T. Hill, Walker. 

The IJist crops of worms appear in August, and eat the leaves and wob up; and como 
out again in September, and eat leaves and youug boll.— [C. B. Richardson, Rusk. 

July and August ; sometimes they do not destroy the cotton verdure until Septem- 
ber, as was the case this year. Then the crop is not so greatly injured ; in fact, is but 
■ little damaged by them. — [A. Underwood, Brazoria. 

The greatest injury done by them is in the mouths of July and August. — [S. Har- 
bert, Colorado. 

July, August, and September if the cotton has been late in planting. — [Natt. Ilolman, 
Fayette. 

In the month of July in this locality. — [J. W. Jackson, Titus. 



Question 3. — Give, as correctly as you can, estimates of the loss to the croj) in your county 
and State durintj notable cotton-ivorm years. 

ALABAMA. 

Where cotton has been planted late and on low wet lands the loss during this sea- 
son (1878) was in many instances estimated as one-third of the fruit then on the plant, 
while on cotton that was planted earlier and on dry land the loss was not estimated 
at more than one-tenth. — [H. F. Henry, Pickens. 

Loss in Bullock about 5,000 bales ; loss in State aboat 75,000 bales. — [I. F. Culver, 
Bullock. 

In 1873 in what is known as the " black belt," from the wet and worms together the 
crop was almost a complete failure. I would say that, perhaps, had there been no 
worms our crops would have been more than three times what they were. Other 
years the damage is not so great ; perhaps 25 per cent. — [R. W. Russell, Lowndes. 

Generally from 25 to 50 per cent.— [H. Tutwiler, Hale. 

In lb'G7-'G8 the loss in this section was one-fourth ; in 1869 little injury was done ; 
in 1870, none ; in 1871, one-fourth ; in 1872, one-third ; in 1873, two-thirds of the crop. 
I do not think since 1873 that exceeding 15 or 20 per cent, damage has been done to 
any crop. If the season of growth is favorable to the development of a large weed, 
I think that if the worms do not destroy the foliage before the last of September they 
favor the opening of the cotton-bolls, and in this become means of direct benefit. — 
[R. S. Williams, Montgomery. 

About one-third of the crop, in 1372-'73.— [Dr. John Peurifoy, Montgomery. 

In 1872 and '73, crop cut short one-half; other years from one-fourth to one-third. — 
[Knox, Minge & Evans, Hale. 

They injure the cotton from one-fourth to one-third. — [J. C. Matthews, Dale. 

When the season is all right for an average crop or yield, and the caterpillar strips 
the fields in September, the loss must be 20 per cent., if not more. As to the aggre- 
gate loss I could not undertake to say, in this county and State. — [Andrew Jay, Con- 
ecuh. 

It is very difficult to estimate with any accuracy the amount of loss by the cater- 
pillar in our State, or even the county, as the loss is never uniform. Some localities 
suiter much worse than others ; some plantations are eaten out a week before others 
in the same neighborhood. In 1873, I am satisfied I lost one-half of my crop ; in 
1868, one-sixth ; in 1874, one-sixth ; in 1878, one-fifth ; other years, less. Would say 
for this county, in worst years, loss $50,000 ; in the State, $500,000.— [H. Hawkins, 
Barbour. 

In county from one to three fourths of the crop.— [J. D. Driesbach, Baldwin. 

I have no statistics of losses. My general impression, however, is that in the aggre- 
gate they have not been very considerable.- [C. C. Howard, Autauga. 

Cannot say for the State. In this county and section from one-fourth to one-half. 
Last year they destroyed the crop about the 20th of September. As it was late the 
damage v.as small. This year they destroyed the crop the last of August, and the 
damage was great— not less than one-fourth and probably more. The year 1875 was 
dry ; the worms came late, I think in October, and not enough of them to make much, 
if any, impression. — [H. A. Stolen werck, Perry. 

I cannot even approximate the losses by the worm, but they are immense. No esti- 
mates yet made and published exceed the damage we suffer from them.— [C. M. How- 
ard, Autauga. 

From one-third to one-half on an average. — [James M. Harrington, Monro§. 

About one- fourth of the crop.— [A. D. Edwards, Macon. 

In the black lands of Montgomery and Lowndes Counties, Alabama, the worm rarely 
if ever destroys less than one-half, and often three-fourths, of the crop.— [J. M. Mc- 
Gehee, Milton, Florida. 



410 EEPOKT UPON COTTON INSECTS. 

I planted for 350 bales cottou in 1872; believe I would have gathered that quantity, 
but by the 15th of August the entire foliage and smaller fruiting had been eaten by 
caterpillars. I realized 220 bales. I planted for 250 bales in 1873. The caterpillars 
found uiy crop very line in July ; they spread rapidly. I realized 85 b:des. One of 
my neighbors thiuks that in 1876 he would have made only 25 bales had he not used 
poison. By the aid of the poison he made 150 bales. The stage of maturity of the 
fruitage when the caterpillar appears is, of course, conclusive of the amount of damage 
resulting.— [J. W. Du Bose, Montgomery. 

In 18()8 probably one-fourth of the entire cotton crop was lost by the cotton- worm, 
that eats olf the leaves and squares or forms of cotton. In 1871 they appeared earlier 
than at any other date in my recollection; they appeared as early as the 10th of 
Angubt in sufficient force to strip the cotton-stalk of everything but the full-grown 
bolls. In 1871 I think one-half the crop was lost by the cottou-worm.— [George VV. 
Thagard, Crenshaw. 

On late cotton generally about two-thirds of a crop is lost. On uplands planted 
early uot much loss, as the crop has generally fruited and matured before they como. — 
[H.'C. Brown, Wilcox. 

In 18Go the loss in this county amounted to 30 per cent., owing greatly, however, to 
the large amount of late cotton, caused by old seed having been planted that failed to 
germinate, making it necessary to plant again. In 1873 the loss was 70 percent. This 
year on the bottom and lime lands a loss of 20 per cent, is claimed. Other years the 
damage has been local or incidental. — [P. T. Graves, Lowndes. 

If the worm comes early in the season the crop is cut off one-half. In 1878 the crop 
was damaged one-eighth in this vicinity ; but east of here in this county, where the 
worm came in August, the crop was damaged one-fonrth. — [J. N. Gilmore, Sumter. 

In 183U, about one-third ; 1844, about one-third ; 1852, one-half ; in 1867, about one- 
fifth ; in 1868, about one-lourth of the crop was destroyed; in 1869, about one-third; 
in 1873, fully one-third. — [M. W. Hand, Greene. 

In 1866, about one-third; in 1871, about one-half; in 1872, one-fourth; in 1873, one- 
eighth ; and in 1876, one-half. — [J. S. Hausberger, Bibb. 

Where the crop is well advanced, the land being well prepared, and planted just as 
early as the season will i^ermit, cultivated well and rapidly, and, as thesa.ving is, " pushed 
from the word go," the loss is much less than when planted late and poorly cultivated. 
The general average of loss we estimate for county and State to be 33J- per cent. — [J. 
A. Callaway, Montgomery. 

Farmers divide the crop into three sections or crops : (1) bottom, (2) middle, and 
(3) top crop, all of which very easily mature. In the year 1825 the oldest fanners now 
living estimate the loss at 98 per cent. Mr. Chesley Crosby, a large planter, only 
gathered 10 bales from 500 acres. In 1867 at least 66| ; 1868, 25 ; loss in 1873, about 
40; some placing it at 90, some 75 ; 1874, about the same as 1873, each farmer estimat- 
ing from his individual loss. In 1874 Mr. le Dramond gathered 900 pounds of seed 
cotton from 14 acres, which would have produced 1,000 pounds per acre. This is about 
an average for this county for 1874. But taking the drought and rainy seasons year 
after year, together, with all thinprs incident to cotton-growing, I think that 50 is a 
very fair average since 1888. — [P. D. Bowles, Conecuh. 

I have uot the data and hence can hardly give the approximate losses in the cotton 
crop iu notable worm years. If the season is favorable, the cotton planted early and 
well cultivated, much is gained, and the loss would be light ; for when the bottom 
crop is heavy the top crop is light ; hence there would be less for worms to destroy. 
But if the spring is cool and wer, and the summer wet, the crop will of necessity be 
badly cultivated; and consequently the crop will be late. Under such disadvantages 
the crop would be cut olf one-third. — [David Lee, Lowndes. 

ARKANSAS. 

I think the loss to the crop in this county this year will be $100,000. At least one- 
fourth of the crop is destroyed. Planters were not aware of the extent of damage until 
they had picked a good deal. — [T. S. Edwards, Pope. 

During the years 1865-'6o-'67, the worms destroyed at least one-fourth of the crop 
each year, and in some portions of the Eed Eiver lands the entire crop on many plan- 
tations.— [E. T. Dale, Miller. 

FLORIDA. 

The losses vary, of course, accordin;?' to the completeness of destruction and the 
amount of matured cotton at the time of destruction. In some fields I have seen four- 
fifths destroyed ; in others, not exceeding a fifth, though both were entirely eaten over 
by the worm. But I think it safe to say the destruction generally amounted to one- 
third iu the bad years.— [F. M. Meekin, Alachua. 

GEORGIA. 
I don't think our county lost any from the effects of the worm, as it was late before 
they came, and barely touched the bolls of cotton. In places they come in August, 
and make havoc with the cotton. — [E. M. Thompson, Jackson. 



APPENDIX II — ANSWEES TO CIRCULAR. 411 

In a bad worm year, wet ami cool, tlicy destroy all the top cottou, aud necessarily it 
is cut oll'one-lialf. — [William A. Ilarriy, Worth. 

The loss ill my county in 18:35 and '4G was fully one- third.— [William Jones, Clarko. 

The most notable cotton-worm years the estimate of the loss was about one-third. — 
[Timothj' Fussell, Cofiee. 

Tho losses from worms in this county have been very small, not one bale out of a 
thousand. — [M. Kemp, Marion. 

Half the crop, at least. — [D. P. Luke, Berrien. 

In tho years when most destructive, their damages are at least 25 per cent.— [S. P. 
Odom, Dooly. 

Never greater than from 10 to 20 per cent.— [A. J. Cheves, Macon. 

LOUISIANA. 

In 1841 the losses were greatest from injury done to the quality of the cotton ^'rom 
the litter aud excrement dropped by the worms on the open bolls. Their appennmce 
was late and a good crop of bolls had already been matured on the stalks before they 
appeared in suliicient numbers to destroy the plants. The last crop of worms were 
very large, and roads, ditches, and all places were tilled with them, when they began 
their march after eating out the cotton-lields. In 184G the cotton-crops hero were cut 
short from 50 to GO per cent. In the last fourteen years, tho destructive years were 
particularly 18(57, '71, '72, and '73. — [Douglas M. Hamilton, West Feliciana. 

The losses vary from four-lifths to one-third. In 1844 tho farmers scarcely raised 
cotton-seed enough to plant their crops of 1845.— [John A. Muryiuan, East Feliciana. 

The loss during the years mentioned was fully two-thirds. — [Dr. I. U. Ball, West 
Feliciana. 

MISSISSIPPI. 

I will give the estimate of the loss for the first destructive year (184^). The plant- 
ers say that in this locality not more than one-third of a crop was raised that year, 
or a loss of about 6(3 per cent, of whole crop. — [George F. Webb, Amite. 

I have never seen an estimate, but would say the damage done to each crop, visited 
as early as August, would be over one-third. — [Dr. E. H. Anderson, Madison. 

In 1845 loss was two- thirds; in 1864, nine-tenths; since then from one-fourth to little 
or nothing. This season in some places one-third. — [J. W. Burch, Jeftersou. 

About 25 per cent. — [William T. Lewis, Winston. 

In 1873, damage to my crop 40 to 50 per cent.; other years 10 to 25 per cent. — [Dan- 
iel Cohen, Wilkinson. 

In 1847 or '48 tho loss was probably 50 per cent., and in one year between 1865 and 
'70, the loss was probably (iO per cent. This year I judge the loss does not exceed 10 
l)er cent. — [C. Welch, Covington. 

It is commonly thought that the loss of the leaves, which usually takes place in 
September, is an advantage, as it hastens the maturing and opening of the bolls. The 
area stripped in August is never considerable. — [J. Culhertsou, Rankin. 

When they commence early, one third ; late, one-fourth. — [W. Spillman, Clarke. 

At least one-half of the ordinary crop when worms are bad. There are very few 
years that there are no worms. In fact, I don't recollect that I ever saw a single year 
without a few. — [Kenneth Clarke, Chickasaw. 

It is a difficult matter in general to estimate the loss done to a crop. I think though 
in some notable years with the worm, an overestimate has not been made iu saying 
that the loss was one-fourth, aud I would not consider it exaggeration in hearing it 
estimated to be one-half. — [John C. Russell, Madison. 

In 1825 and '46 fully 50 per cent. In 1867, ^HS, and '73 probably 25 per cent. Many 
other years and for several successive years, in certain localities, I have known the crop 
wholly destroyed in July, so that not enough seed was matured to plant next year's 
ci'op.-^[D. L. Phares, Wilkinson. 

The crop is injured about one-third. All the young fruit is ruined by them. We 
used to calculate there was a certainty of most of the blooms making, that came before 
the 10th of September. Now we cannot count on any after tho 1st of August. Our 
crops have fallen ott' at least one-third since they have been visited by the worms.— [C. 
F. bherriod, Lowndes. 

NORTH CAROLINA. 

The worm is so late in making its appearance in this latitude that it is doubtful if 
they ever do any injury. In fact, many farmers consider them as a benefit, as they cat 
ofi" the top leaves, and letting the sun in on the lower bolls, causes them to open better. 
As they have never been looked on as an evil, I have never studied them closely, and 
hence cannot make an intelligent report. — [J. Evans, Cumberland. 

Very slight.— [F. I. Smith, Halifax. 



412 EEPORT UPON COTTON INSECTS. 

SOUTH CAKOLIXA. 

Abovit three-fourths of the crop has been destroj^ed in most years when worms have 
lieeu general, and in some neighborhoods seven-eighths has been lost. — [James W. 
Grace, Colleton. 

TIio greatest loss to the county in the aggregate for one year most notable for the 
cotton-worm was about one-fourth. On some farms, mostly in southern localities, 
nearly one-half. — [James C. Brown, Barnwell. 

TENNESSEE. 

It is quite difficult to give even an approximation of the loss sustained in the State 
or county during years of severest visitations, for, while old large farms have lost 
maybo one-half or three-fourths, new small farms, inclosed by dense forests, have suf- 
fered very frequently not at all. However, as we are anxious to aid you all in our 
power, and as perhaps there are few other sources in our State from which you could 
be expected to get more accurate information, I will hazard 20 per cent, as the heavi- 
est general loss through the whole State. — [A. W. Hunt, M. D., Perry. 

TEXAS. 

In this locality it was generally estimated to be one-half of the crop. Further south, 
say between latitude 30^, 31'^, and 32°, where the moth made its appearance in June, 
the loss was there estimated to be two-thirds of the crop, and in some localities on low 
bottoms the entire crop was lost. I cannot give you the estimate in dollars and cents, 
but can approximate by saying that the average estimate of cotton crops in these local- 
ities is .ibout 400 pounds lint per acre, then worth 1.3 cents per pound. This would 
make these losses $l)0 per .acre, besides the expense of making it. I suppose the aver- 
age loss tliroughout the State in these years would be at least $25 per acre. — [J. W. 
Jackson, Titus. 

I cannot reconcile myself to the fact that any material loss to the cotton crop in this 
county has been from worms, but the insect has been charged with all damages. I 
have, in the Brazos bottom, a cut of cotton that had every appearance of one and a 
halt' bale to the acre. The worms stripped it, and left the glaring fact of not over 
onehall' bale to the acre. The damage was done by the too favorable growing season. 
By stripping the leaves the sun could reach the lower bolls and thereby save them 
from rotting.— [P. S. Clarke, Waller. 

In this county there were a great many persons who did not make more than one 
bale to the 100 acres, in the year 1867. North of this the crops were good, making a 
bale to the acre in places. — [S. Harbert, Colorado. 

About 50 per cent. — [C. B. Richardson, Rusk. 

The loss in our county was very slight. There were but few fields that were visited, 
and those in isolated spots where the plant grew more luxuriantly, and only the upper 
branches, which were tender, were attacked. In fact I heard some planters assert it 
was a benefit, as it caused the lower bolls to open, that otherwise would have rotted. 
The history of the worm in Hunt County is no criterion. I can gather no reliable in- 
formation of loss in the State. — [Samuel Davis, Hunt. 

In a probable crop of 12,000 bales from 25 to 50 per cent, in different years. — [W. 
Barnes, Cherokee. 

In 1H47 two-thirds of the crop was lost ; in other years from one fourth to one-third. — 
[H. J. H. Brensing, Bowie. 

In the year 1863 the worm, baring been very destructive, destroyed about 25 to 30 
per cent, of the crop ; in 1868, the first appearance of the worm having been the earli- 
est on record, the crop was nearly destroyed during the first part of July, and iujured 
more than .50 per cent. The same was the case in 1877, the destruction, owing to the 
extensive application of poisonous preventives, not being so heavy as in 1868. — [J. H. 
Krancher, Austin. 

During many years three- fourths of the cotton crop is destroyed by them. This is 
the case where the verdure is eaten up in July. If eaten up in August half a crop, and 
in September three -fourths of a cotton crop is generally saved, unless diminished by 
other causes. — [A. Underwood, Brazoria. 

Three-fourths. — [Reed Wipprecht, Comal. 

The worm has got to be a fixture upon us ; we have escaped but one year for the last 
twelve or fourteen — that in 1865, when we had a very dry summer. Would think the 
loss to the county one-third, at the very least one-fourth. As to the State I have no 
means of knowing, but it is immense, as frequently whole sections are well-nigh de- 
stroyed.— [O. H. P. Garrett, Washington. 

Two-thirds during the years of greatest damage, though all fields are not attacked 
alike. It depends on the locality of the field and maturity of crop. — [J. M. Glasco, 
Upshur. 

In 1868, loss one-half in this county ; 1873, the same ; in 1874, loss one-third, and in 
1877, three-fourths.— [P. S. Watts, Hardin. 



APPENDIX II ANSWERS TO CIRCULAR. 413 

In 18G7 and 1873 loss was total ; iu 1877 about 75 per cent.— [S. B. Tackaberry, 
Polk. 

For tbo years 1871 aud '73, 25 per ceut eacb; 1874 aud '76, 40 per ceut eacb. — [A. 
Scbvoeter, Biuuet. 

I cannot make any attempt at estimates of losses, as I bavo never kept any data ; 
but millions of dollars bave beea lost and many farmers brouybt to ruin aud pov- 
erty.— [W. T. Hill, Walker. 



QUESTIOX ^x— State as ncarhj as yon can from tlie records tlic lyrevaiUng direction and force 

of the iviiid in your locality, 

ALABAMA. 

During February, Marcb, and April tbe prevailinoj winds are fi-om tbo east and 
Boutb. After tbis we bave but little wind except witb tbunder sbowers, wbicb often 
come from tbe nortbwest. — [R. W. Russell, Lowndes, 

Nortbeast aud soutbwest. — [II. C. Bi'own, Wilcox. 

Soutbeast. — [Knox, Minge, and Evans, Hale. 

It wonld be folly on my part to attempt to answer tbe question as to tbe prevailing 
direction of tbe wind during tbo first six montbs of tbe year, but will give tbe outlines 
of my recollections, namely, nine out of ton rainfalls in tbe county are precedetl by 
winds from tbe Gulf (soutbwest) ; tbe remainder from tbe west to nortbwest, some- 
times, but very rare from tbo nortbeast. Most winds 7iot followed immediately by 
rainfall are from tbe west and nortbwest tonortb; tbis in tbe montbs of January, 
February, and Marcb. Some six years ago Dr. W. D. F. Kelly, now of Demopolis, Ala- 
bama, was doing business in tbis place (Evergreen) ; bis bouse was fronting on tbe 
Mobile aud Montgomery Railway, and it was iu tbe montb of May or Juno tbat be 
called my atteutiou to tbe fact tbat we bad a pleasant breeze from tbe soutbwest, be- 
ginning at ten o'clock every morning, wbicb caused me to take notice of a fact more 
particular in fair weatber. Tbo Doctor was satisfied tbat it was tbe Gulf breeze, 
altbougb nearly one buudred miles away. Tbere is no doubt in my mind, as tbo motb 
18 oftener found buudreds of miles away from tbe cotton-field, tbat it is caused by tbe 
favorable winds from tbo soutb to uortbward, and I am perfectly satisfied tbat Mr. A. 
R. Grote is very mucb mistaken wben be comes to tbe conclusion tbat tbo species per- 
isb eacb year witb tbo plant aud tbat tbey come to tbe cotton States from more south- 
ward countries. Dr. R. A. Lee, of tbis place, wbo bas given mucb time and attention 
to the cotton-worm, informs me tbat be bas often seen tbe chrysalis under old logs, 
sticks, bark, and other pieces of wood, or in dry places, in the montbs of January and 
February, where he bad bands plowing in tbe old cotton-field previously planted, and 
that he has seen tbe motb of warm nights in tbe montbs of January and February 
come in the house to the light of lamps. I have also noticed tbe fact myself. Taking 
it for a point of basis tbat tbe 17th day of May is the earliest diite at which tbe worm 
has ever been seen in this county, it wonld show tbat Mr. Grote's theory is not in 
harmouy witb tbe above facts. If this reasoning bo correct in many warm springs, 
why may not the moths come in great numbers before the month of May, or even in 
June; also, where are the great cotton-fields south or west of the Gulf for them to 
come from? The Mexican aud Central States fail to give any account of tbe ravages 
of worms destructive to the cotton-plant (keeping iu mind that the worm will not 
feed upon any other plant tban cotton). And this in corresponding years in which 
the greatest damage has been done us, looks to me to be very easy to find out for tbe 
years 1807, -'(J8, -'(39, -'74, -'75, and -'78. What damage was done to the very little 
long-staple cotton planted south of tbo United States ? The well-known fact t bat tbe 
moth is rarely or never seen (save iu its hiding place) in the daytime, and tbat they 
are on the wing at night, can be taken to strengthen or deny Mr. A. R. Grote's posi- 
tion, but more strongly to deny. As tbe moth would have to cross a portion of the 
Gulf, if brought by winds from the south of the United States, and as iho sun- 
light is repulsive to them, I would think, as a natural consequence, that tbo moth 
failing to reach land in tbe night, would find a watery grave. There is uo doubt in 
my mTnd but that the chrysalis remains in a torpid state iu tbe fall depository or hid- 
ing place until the warm sun in May brings them to life, and tbe motb comes out and 
starts upon bis journey of life aud destruction. — [P. D. Bowles, Conecuh. 

The Alabama and Conecuh Rivers run soutb aud soutbwest aud empty into the Gulf 
of Mexico. Tbe cotton- worm approaches us by traveling up these rivers aud their 
tributaries.— [George W. Tbagard, Crenshaw. 

It is generally believed tbey migrate northward, coming from South and East Flor- 
ida. Whether this be so or uot I can't say. They often appear 100 miles north of 
here sooner than here, and always in tbe black lands first.— [J. C. Matthews, Dale. 

It is not clear to my mind that the moths migrate, as I have never had any reliable 
evidence of such migration, with an experience of thirty-five years. I have often 



414 REPORT UPON COTTON INSECTS. 

seen tliem in nnrabera sufficient to attract attention during warm days in February 
and March, and am satislied that they had come out from their winter quarters to enjoy 
the warm sua and in quest of food, and in this manner many of them perish, and no 
large numbers are left to jiropagate in the early summer ; and hence no great destruc- 
tion to the cotton that season. Greatest loss after cold, hard winter. — [I. D. Dries- 
bach, Baldwin. 

ARKANSAS. 

From the southwest. — [Norborne Young, Columbia. 

FLORIDA. 

All the winds that continue for any length of time are either from the east, south- 
east, northeast, or westerly. The south winds here are of short duration generally. — 
[F. M. Meekin, Alachua. 

GEORGIA. 

The parent of the cotton-worm migrates here from more southern regions, and is a 
fly. The egg is deposited, and when the worm is grown it webs itself up generally in 
tlie leaves of the cotton, and is transformed iuto a black worm, and in about seven or 
eight days there issues from that a pale yellow bntterlly, as can bo seen by the sam- 
ples I send yon in box marked A. That fly can now be seen here hourly, migrating 
southward. — [S. P. Odom, Dooly. 

I do not believe in the migration of the moth, but think it is sustained through the 
winter in the cotton regions. — [William Jones, Clarke. 

The wind comes from south and southeast duriug first part of the year.— [E. M. 
Thompson, Jackson. 

Variable ; from south to northwest and from northeast to south. — [M. Kemp, Marion. 

From southwest.— [William A. Harris, Worth. 

Southeast.— [Timothy Fussell, Coffee. 

LOUISIANA. 

The prevailing winds are generally from the south, southeast, or southwest ; not 
often from the north.— [John A. Maryman, East Feliciana. 

Nooi)inion of an ordinary cotton planter who is not scientific nor at all informed on 
entomology or the history of insect life is worth much on the subject of the history 
of the cotton-worm. We are governed only in forming our opinions by what we 
observe under our own eyes and in our own sections. The moths may possibly be 
wafted great distances by favorable winds, but the general belief is that the insect 
hibernates here, and is to be found here now annually, no matter how or where it may 
have come from at some former time. We do not observe weather and seasons close 
enough to tell accurately about winds, cold, heat, rains, dry seasons, and many other 
points, and no records are kept of such matters, as far as I'kuow, except latterly by 
persons in governnlent employ at signal-stations, forts, arsenals, or by parties engaged 
in explorations or surveys ordered by the general government. I cannot, therefore, 
say anything on these topics worth writing to you more than I have already written. 
It has been observed by many planters here within the past fourteen years that many 
places are favorable to the appearance of the worm and its after increase, and partic- 
ular spots or localities on these different plantations. There are no reasons apparent 
for this incident, and though it is'generally and almost annually observed, I have never 
heard any plausible reason assigned, nor any even attempted. These places are scat- 
tered here and there over our whole parish, with all varieties of soil, localities, condi- 
tions, and surroundings, and still some seem to bo selected as breeding spots for the 
worms every year — or landing places, if it is true that the moths are blown here annu- 
ally from other parts of the world.— [Douglas M. Hamilton, West Feliciana. 

MISSISSIPPI. 

I am convinced by long observation that the jnotJi is not miqratortj, for this reason : 
when the worm has appeared in the most frightful numbers, I know that thci/ hatched in 
the fields, and after running their course they died iu the cotton-fields by the million. 
They always first appeared in small numbers, and increased for two succeeding gen- 
erations to the most frightful numbers. The wind was as follows : February, west 
and northwest ; in March, south and southwest ; iu April, south and southwest ; iu 
May, west ; in June, east.— [George V. Webb, Amite. 

As to migration, they only migrate as far as the winds carry them. — [W. Spillman, 
Clarke. 

From the 20th of September to the 20th of March, or from the autumnal to the ver- 
nal equinox, the general bearing of our winds is from northeast to north and north- 
west, with occasional breezes from the opposite points of the compass, and from the 
vernal to the autumnal, from south to southwest, with occasional northwest and north 
winds. During the first period condensation appears to commence in the cast and 
brings us our rains from that quarter, and during the latter period from the northwest, 



APPENDIX II ANSWERS TO CIRCULAR. ' 415 

always clearing up after a nortliwest current. The force of f lie wind, except during 
storms, I would estimate at six miles per hour.— [Dr. K. H. Anderson, Madison. 

No records at band ; but from any one's observations and recollections, most of the 
days in February witb moderate force from nortbeast, east, sontbeast, and soutli. 
During tbis moutb almost every year tbere is a lierce wind frotu nortbwest, sometimes 
once, oftener perbaps twice, rarely tbrice, of one or two days' duration, and bringing 
severe cold.— [D. L. Pbares, Williinson. 

Wo rarely bave more tban two or tbree days wben tbo wind does not got to tbe 
soutb in spring and summer moutbs. A great many tbeoiies are advanced about tbe 
migration of tbe raotb. Several years ago some farmers believed tbey were wintered 
in tbe bollow or pitb of botb tbe cotton and corn stalk, and tbey burned botb to get 
rid of tbem. If tbat was correct, and all burned, it migbt do some good.— [K. Clarke, 
Cbickasaw. 

NORTH CAROLINA. 

From soutbwest ; force rarely reacbes twelve miles per bour, unless in stormy 
•weatber.— [F. I. Smitb, Halifax. 

SOUTH CAROLINA, 

South and soutbwest. — [James W. Grace, Colleton. 

TENNESSEE. 

I have been a close observer of tbis species of tbe insect family in question, and while 
I am aware tbat tbe moth is occasionally found in parts of our country remote from tbe 
cotton-belt, I am satisfied such cases are rare and wbolly adventitious. There cer- 
tainly is no sufficient evidence that tbere is a system in the migrations of this insect 
or fly. While it might be barely possible that an erratic moth might make its way, 
under very extraordinary circumstances, from a more southern State to tbis State, and 
propagate its species here, tbe fact that after several years of total exemption here, of 
a sudden our fields become infested, could not be accounted for on the migratory the- 
ory in the absence of ocular evidenceof cloudsof the moths engaged in tbo northward 
migration, &c.— [A. W. Hunt, M. D., Perry. 

Tbo wind blows mostly from tbe soutbeast ; we have some very bard winds from 
the southwest and west. — [.J. McMillan, Decatur. 

TEXAS. 

The worm generally makes its appearance first in the lower coast counties and appears 
to work its way up the country, being favored by tbe winds generally prevailing at 
the time, east, southeast, and soutb-soutbwest. Tbey almost invariably make their 
first appearance in Brazoria, Fort Bend, Wharton, and Colorado Counties, lying east, 
southeast, and south of tbis, tben working their way up along tbe Colorado or Brazos 
River bottoms and plantations.' During the last two or three years tbey generally 
appeared about three or four weeks previous to their appearance here eigbteen to 
twenty miles south of us on tbe Colorado River, then coming across tbe prairie along 
the edge of the upland timber with tbo prevailing sea breeze. — [J. H. Krancher, Austin. 

Soutb and southeast varied by northern, at intervals of two or three days. — [Saul 
Davis, Hunt. 

South to southeast in general, fifteen to twenty miles. — [W. Barnes, Cherokee. 

From south and soutb by east during the spring and summer months. In May we 
are apt to have the most constant and strongest winds from tbe south; the stronger 
the winds tbe less it rains.— [O. H. P. Garrett, Washington. 

The prevailing direction of tbe wind in Southern Texas is constantly from the south; 
i. e., from the Gulf of Mexico. Sometimes wo bave a north wind for two or three days, 
blowing usually at the rate of twenty miles. — [W. T. Hill, Walker. 

Southeast in fair, pleasant weather, east in rainy, and north in cold weatber. — [A. 
Underwood, Brazoria. 

My observation is that tbey make their appearance in the spring, and are found in 
bottom lands that are heavily timbeied first, around drift-logs, &c., and remain for 
some time in the timber and high, rank weeds, always showing more just after a rain. 
— [Natt Holman, Fayette. 

1 bave no doubt that the moth is at times, if not habitually, migratory, as I have 
observed it to appear in large numbers all of a sudden, and in seasons when previous 
to their arrival tbe conditions for their development and increase had been very un- 
favorable, so much so that it was a bard task to find a half a dozen of them in a field 
of ten acres, while the next morning the air was full of tbem, the wind blowing at 
that time tbe same that it does nearly all the year round, from soutbeast. — [A. Schroe- 
ter, Burnet. 



416 • REPORT UPON COTTOX INSECTS, 

Question 4 a. — Direction and force of the ivind in February. 



From the north, and frequently strong. — [C. M. Howard, Autauga. 

South, west, and southwest in warm spells ; if cool, the wind is north. — [J. C. Matth- 
ews, Dale. 

In 187(), the most disastrous worm year I know of, winds east and southeast. — [J. W. 
Du Bose, Montgomery. 

Variable, though mostly a stiff wind from the north and northeast. — [M. W. Hand, 
Greene. 

Southeast. — [Knox, Minge, and Evans, Hale. 

The wind generally comes from the west. — [I. F. Culver, Bullock. 

Wind in February is variable and from all points of the compass.— [R. S. Williams, 
Montgomery. 

Tliu wiuds in February are generally from the south and southwest during the warm 
Vitalher of the month, veering around to the west and northwest, and with consider- 
able force. — [J. N. Giluiore, Sumter. 

From southeast to northwest. — [J. A. Callaway, Montgomery. 

February prevailing winds southwest "21, southeast 17. — [H. Tutweiler, Hale. 

February, northwest when cold, west when cool and dry, east and south when rainy 
and disagreeable. — [Dr. John Peurifoy, Montgomery. 

AKKANSAS. 

From south and southwest ; sometimes from east ; seldom from north or west. — [T. 
S. Edwards, Pope. 
North and northeast. — [E, T. Dale, Miller. 

FLORIDA. 

Hard, from the west. — [John B. Carrin, Taylor. 
Northerly. — [R. Gamble, Leon. 

GEORGIA. 

From south to northwest. — [M. Kemp, Marion. 

From northwest. — [William Jones, Clarke. 

February the wind comes from the south and southeast. — [E. M.Thompson, Jackson. 

Generally from the north and northeast. — [S. P. Odom, Dooly. 

Northwest. — [William A. Harris. Worth. 

Mostly from northwest. — [Timothy Fussell, Coffee. 

LOUISIANA. 

The prevailing winds in February are from the north and northwest. — [John A. Ma- 
ryman, East Feliciana. 

MISSISSIPPI. 

February is characterized by no particular prevailing current, but varying from one 
point to another. Tornadoes are not uufrequent in this month, and their course is in- 
variably from west to east. — [Dr. E. II. Anderson, Madison. 

North, velocity varying from one to lifteen miles ])er hour. — [C. Welch, Covington. 

From north and east. — [Kenneth Clark, Chickasaw. 

North and northeast. — [.I. W. Burch, Jetfersou. 

From west and north. — [C. F. Sherriod, Lowndes. 

Mostly east and southeast. — [W. Spillman, Clarke. 

I do not think the winds from the south are sufllcieutly strong to mitigate or coun- 
teract the trade- wiuds. The prevailing direction of the wiml in July is east and south- 
east. — [George V. Webb, Amite. 

NORTH CAROLINA. 

South and southwest. — [F. J. Smith, Halifax. 
Northwest. — [J. Evans, Cumberland. 

SOUTH CAROLINA. 

From northeast.— [Paul S. Felder, Orangeburgh. 
South and southwest. — [James W. Grace, Colleton. 

February, from west and northwest; occasionally gently from the south. — [James 
C. Brown, Barnwell. 

TENNESSEE. 

If February is mild and pleasant the wind blows mostly from the south, southeast, 
and southwest, and in a cold month the wind blows north, northeast, and northwest. — 
[John McMillan. Decatur. 

North and northeast, latter predominating. — [A. W. Hunt, M. D., Perry. 



APPENDIX II ANSWERS TO CIRCULAR. 417 



Our winds as a rule from tlie south. Tbo northers spring np, but last only three 
(lays at most.— [P. S. Clarke, Waller. 

South and southeast, varied at intervals by wind from the north that continued two 
or three days. — [Samuel Davis, Hunt. 

Winds stiff and change frequently, and come from all points of the compass. — [O. 
H. P. Garrett, Washington. 

February, ISCVl, nineteen days from the south ; the remainder from the north and 
northwest.; Iblj'i, fifteen days from the south and southwest, the remainder from the 
north and northeast. — [J.M. Ghisco, Upshur. 

East. — [H. J. H. Brensing, Bowie. 

South three to six days ; then north three or four days. — [W. Barnes, Cherokee. 

North. — [R. Wipprecht, Comal. 

Alternately south and north. — [A. Schroeter, Burnet. 

The prevailing winds in February are mostly northeast and sonth, seldom changing 
to west. The north winds are generally dry and cold. East wind is almost always 
rain wind ; the same southeast. — [J. H. Krancher, Austin. 

From the south, and fifteen miles an hour. — [W. T. Hill, Walker. 

From southwest and northwest. — [C. B. Richardson, Rusk. 

The most general course of the winds in this locality is from the south and east. — 
[S. Harbert, Colorado. 

The general direction of the winds in this locality is, in February, west and northwest ; 
in changes, such as rain or snow, invariably north or northeast. From the middle to the 
last of the mouth the wind drops further south and southwest ; in case of change to 
rain or " wet spell" invariably east and northeast, clearing from the north. All the 
mild weather in this month has a brisk southwest wind. The force of the wind south 
and southwest is from a mild breeze to a gale. — [J. W. Jackson. 

In spring, most from the south ; in summer, mostly south ; f ;ill, Bouth and east, oc- 
casionally north; winter, south and generally noith. — [Natt Holman, Fayette. 



Question 4 h. — Direction and force of the wind in the month of March. 

ALABAMA. 

Southeast. — [Knox, Minge, and Evans, Hale. 

East and southeast in lb76. — [J. W. Du Bose, Montgomery. 

Generally from east to west. — [H. C. Brown, Wilcox. 

From the east and north, frequently changing, and often violent. — [C. M. Howard, 
Autauga. 

For the greater part of this month a strong wind from the north and northeast. — 
[M. W. Hand, Greene. 

The winds in March are more generally from the southeast and south, except what 
is called the March wind, which blows very strong from the west and northwest. — 
[J. N. Gilmore, Sumter. , 

West and northwest. — [I. F. Culver, Bullock. 

From southeast to northwest. — [J. A. Callaway, Montgomery. 

March, southeast, 28; southwest, 24.— [H. Tutwiler, Hale. 

March is our blowing month, when winter dallies in the lap of spring. Winds 
southwest and south. — ^[Dr. John Peurifoy, Montgomery. 

ARKANSAS. 

South and southwest, very little from north or east. — [T. S. Edwards, Pope. 
South and southeast.— [E. T. Dale, Miller. 

FLORIDA. 

Very hard, from the west and northwest. — [John B. Carrin, Taylor. 
Variable, north and southerly.— [R. Gamble, Leon. 

GEORGIA. 

Most of the time from the south and southwest, especially if it be a warm month. — 
[S. P. Odom, Dooly. 
Mostly from west.— [E. M. Thompson, Jackson. 
South and northwest. — [M. Kemp, Marion. 
Northwest. — [William A. Harris, Worth. 
Mostly from south and east. — [Timothy Fussell, Coffee. 
Northwest. — [William Jones, Clarke. 

27 CI 



418 REPORT UPON COTTON INSECTS. 

LOUISIANA. 

During March and April the prevailing wind is south and west, lasting sometimes a 
week, strong enough and long enough to bring a moth from South America, I should 
think. I have no record of the wind, but if the moths are brought hero by the wind, 
which I think they are, it is during the mouths of March, April, and May. — [H. B. 
Shaw, Concordia. 

In March from the south. — [John A. Maryraan, East Feliciana. 

MISSISSIPPI. 

In March we have south to southwest winds, met by counter condensing currents 
from northeast to north and consequent heavy rains, especially during the latter part 
of the month, clearing otf with cool northwesterly wiuds. The average force of the 
Avind greater. — [Dr. E. H. Anderson, Madison. 

March winds variable southwest and northwest with considerable force, oftener 
rortheast, and still oftener southeast and south; sometimes very strong for several 
successive days. — [D. L. Phares, Wilkinson. 

Prevailing winds south, maximum velocity probably 15 miles per hour. — [C.Welch, 
Covington. 

South. — [Kenneth Clark, Chickasaw. 

North. — [C. F. Sherriod, I^owndes. 

East and southeast. — [J. W. Burch, Jefferson. 

Southwest, northwest, and north ; when from southeast the hardest. — [W. Spillman, 
Clarke. 

NORTH CAROLINA. 

Northwest. — [.J. Evans, Cumberland. 
Northeast.— [F. I, Smith. Halifax. 

SOUTH CAROLINA. 

South and southwest, of ten northeast and southeast. — [James W. Grace, Colleton. 

From every direction. — [Paul S. Felder, Orangeburgh. 

March, west, northwest, and north. — [James C. Brown, Barnwell. 

TENNESSEE. 

North, northwest, and west, northwest predominating. — [A. W. Hunt, M. D., Perry. 
Mostly from northwest. — [John McMillan, Decatur. 

TEXAS. 

Our east and southeast winds will as surely bring rain as the norther brings cold. — 
[P. S. Clarke, Waller. 

South to southeast l.'} to 30 miles, with an occasional norther 30 to 40 and sometimes 
60 miles. — [W. Barnes, Cherokee. 

March, ISGO, the wind blew sixteen days from the south ard fifteen days from the 
north ; March, 1861, nineteen days from the south, the remainder west and north- 
west. — [J. M. Glasco, Upshur. 

Northwest. — [H. J. H. Brensing, Miller. 

South, south by east, and south by west. — [0. H. P. Garrett, Washington. 

Changeable. — [R. Wipprecht, Comal. 

From the south, sometimes more than the usual rate. — [W. T. Hill, Walker. 

In the month of March northers are less frequent, east and south w ind mostly prevail- 
ing; if a norther occurs, it is generally followed by frost. A sleet of several days' 
duration occurred as late as the 15th of March, 1867. — [J. H. Krancher, Austin. 

Generally from west. — [C. B. Richardson, Rusk. 

South and east. — [S. Harbert, Colorado. 

South, and blowing like blazes. — [Natt. Holman, Fayette. 

March gives ua about the same direction and force of wind as February, except from 
the 10th to the 22d high winds, north and northwest. The latter part of the month 
gives high brisk winds from south-southwest, with sudden shifts to the northwest. — 
[J. W. Jackson, Titus. 



Question 4 c. — The direction and foree of the wind in the month of April. 

ALABAMA. 

West and northwest. — [J. C. Matthews, Dale. 

Variable and light.— [C. M. Howard, Autauga. 

From west to northeast. — [J. C. Brown, Wilcox. 

Southeast. — [Knox, Minge, and Evans, Hale. 

Generally a steady cool breeze from the north.— [M. W. Hand, Greene. 



APPENDIX II ANSWEES TO CIRCULAR. 419 

East and southeast in 1876.— [J. W. Da Bose, Montgomery. 

The wind iu the niouth of April is generally from the sontheast and south. — [J. N. 
Gilmore, Sumter. 

Variable, but mostly from southwest.— [R. S. Williams, Montgomery. 

From southwest to uortbeast.— [J. A. Callaway, Montgomery. 

April, southeast, 32.— [H. Tutwiler, Hale. 

April showers are proverbial. And this year the "borrowing days" did not forget to 
blow from the west and southwest. And the freshet came on the 11th instant. No 
cyclone here, but pretty hard wind. Cyclone in Lee County, and at Fort Gaines, 
Ga., with considerable damage. Some loss of life. — [Dr. John Peurifoy, Montgomery. 

ARKANSAS. 

South and southeast. — [T. S. Edwards, Pope. 
South and southeast. — [E. T. Dale, Miller. 

FLORIDA. 

"Variable and gentle.— [J. B. Carrin, Taylor, 
Chiefly south; at times north. — [R. Gamble, Leon. 

GEORGIA. 

Variable, from land to sea. — [William Jones, Clarke. 
Southeast. — [William A. Harris, Worth 
April, from the west mostly. — [E. M. Thompson, Jackson. 
From southeast. — [Timothy Tussell, Coffee. 
From east and northeast. — [S. P. Odoni, Dooly. 

Variable and moderate ; moves from south to north by the way of the west, then 
from northeast to south. — [M. Kemp, Marion. 

LOUISIANA. 

In April, from south and southeast. — [John A. Maryman, East Feliciana. 

MISSISSIPPI. 

Sontheast and south. — [J. W. Burch, Jefferson. 

From all the points of the compass, with little force. — [Dr. E. H. Anderson, Madison. 

South. — [Kenneth Clark, Chickasaw. 

Prevailing winds south, maximum velocity 10 miles. — [C. Welch, Covington. 

With moderate force from some southerly point. — [D. L. Phares, Wilkinson. 

Sooth. — [C. F. Sherriod, Lowndes. 

Southwest and generally, about Easter, north. — [W. Spillman, Clark. 

NORTH CAROLINA. 

Northwest and southwest. — [J. Evans, Cumberland. 
Southwest. — [F. I. Smith, Halifax. 

SOUTH CAROLINA. 

Southwest and northwest. — [James W. Grace, Colleton. 

West.— [Paul S. Felder, Orangeburgh. 

April, south and southwest and southeast. — [James C. Brown, Barnwell. 

TENNESSEE. 

From the southwest mostly. We have some very hard storms from that direction iu 
the spring.- [John McMillan, Decatur. 
Northeast and west equally.— [A. W. Hunt, M. D., Perry. 

TEXAS. 

In April, 18G0, we had twenty-two days from south and southwest, and eight north, 
northwest, and northeast ; in lfc61, fifteen days south, southeast, and southwest.- [J. 
M. Glasco, Upshur. 

South by east and south.- [O. H. P. Garrett, Washington. 

East.— [H. J. H. Brensing:, Miller. 

Southeast.— [Samuel Davis, Hunt. 

South.— [R. Wipprecht, Comal. 

Southeast to southwest ; 15 to 25 miles.— [W. Barnes, Cherokee. 

April, mostly south, southeast, and southwest winds prevail; an occasional north 
wind occurs, frequently the forerunner of a late spring frost. In the year 1859, the 
latest spring frost, in my recollection, occurred on the night of the 24th April, killing 
corn badly, but not injuring cotton much ; that year the worm did little damage, a 
heavy crop being made. The year previous, a norther came up on the 11th of April, 



420 REPORT UPON COTTON INSECTS. 

on the morninfj of the 12th several inches of snow covered the ground ; also a good 
cotton year. — [J. H. Krancher, Austin. 

Southwest. — [C. B. Richardson, Rusk. 

Southeast. — [A. Uuderwood, Brazoria. 

South and east. — [S. Harbert, Colorado. 

April, south and east.— [Natt. Holman, Fayette. 

April gives us balmy breezes from the south ; high winds from southwest continue 
but a few days, then suddenly shift to northwest with rain ; continued rain gives east 
and northeast winds. — [J. W. Jackson, Titus. 



Question 4d. — The direction and force of the u-ind in the month of May. 

ALABAMA. 

Southeast. — [Knox, Minge, and Evans, Hale. 

Wind usually quiet and rarely strong or continuous from one direction many days. 
— [C. M. Howard, Autauga. 

A pleasant breeze from the south. — [M. W. Hand, Greene. 

From south to northeast. — [H. C. Brown, Wilcox. 

South and west. — [J. C. Mathews, Dale. 

In 1876, in May, east and southeast winds prevailed. — [J. W. Du Bose, Montgomery. 

From south and southwest. — [J. R. Rogers, Bullock. 

South and southwest. — [I. F. Culver, Bullock. 

Winds in the month of May are generallj' from the southeast and south. — [J. N. 
Gilmore, Sumter. 

South and west of south.— [R. S. Williams, Montgomery. 

From southwest to northeast. — [J. A. Callaway, Montgomery. 

May, southeast, 26 ; southwest, 17. — [H. Tutwiler, Hale. 

The winds are generally nothing more than cooling zephyrs, and are from the west 
■when dry ; south and southwest when cloudy. — [Dr. John Peurifoy, Montgomery. 

ARKANSAS. 

South, southeast, and southwest. — [T. S. Edwards, Pope. 
South and southeast. — [E. T. Dale, Miller. 

FLORIDA. 

From the southeast and east, gentle breezes.— John B. Carrin, Taylor. 
Northerly. — [R. Gamble, Leon. 

GEORGIA. 

From south to northwest and from northeast to east and south ; there are more east 
winds in May than in any other month. — [M. Kemp, Marion. 

The wind is changeable, from south and west generally ; occasionally from the 
east. — [E. M. Thompson, Jackson. 

From southwest, if seasonable, and if not, generally from the east. — [S. P. Odom, 
Dooly. 

Variable. — [William Jones, Clarke. 

South, east, and west. — [Timothy Fussell, Coffee. 

South winds mostly. — [W. A. Harris, Worth. 

LOUISIANA. 

In May the winds are from the south and southeast. — [John A. Maryman, East Feli- 
ciana. 

MISSISSIPPI. 

Except during occasonal rain-storms, the winds are gentle south and southwest 
breezes. — [Dr. E. H. Anderson, Madison. 

Winds usually gentle, sometimes with much force ; as in April from southeast, south, 
to southwest mostly. — [D. L. Phares, Wilkinson. 

Southwest ; velocity 8 miles per hour. — [C. Welch, Covington. 

South. — [Kenneth Clark, Chickasaw. 

Southeast, south, and southwest. — [J. W. Burch, Jefferson. 

South. — [C. F. Sherriod, Lowndes. 

Mostly south and southwest. — [W. Spillman, Clark. 

NORTH CAROLINA. 

Southwest.— [F. I. Smith, Halifax. 
Southwest. — [J. Evans, Cumberland. 



APPENDIX II ANSWERS TO CIRCULAR. 421 



SOUTH CAROLINA. 



Southwest.— [Paul S. Felder, Orangeburgh. 

Sonthwest aud south. — [James W. Graco, Colleton. 

May. — South and southwest and west. — [James C. Brown, Barnwell. 

TENNESSEE. 

We have some very hard winds from the south, southeast, and southwest. — [John 
McMillan, Decatur. 
Northwest and west, latter predominating.— [A. W. Hunt, M. D., Perry. 

TEXAS. 

Southeast.— [Samuel Davis, Hunt. 

In 1860, south winds twenty-five days, and six days west, northwest, aud north- 
east. In 1861, twenty days south wind, southeast, and southwest, the remainder north, 
northwest, and northeast. — [J. M. Glasco, Upshur. 

Southeast. — [H. J. II. Breusing, Bowie. 

South and moderately brisk to stiff breeze nearly all day.— [O. H. P. Garrett, Wash- 
ington. 

South. — [R. Wipprecht, Comal. 

In May the south breeze is the prevailing wind, with an occasional west wind, which 
occurs mostly in the shape of severe thunder-storms, sometimes doing much damage 
by their violence, and washing, heavy rains. — [J. H. Krancher, Austin. 

From the south, with the usual rate of summer winds. — [W. T. Hill, Walker. 

Southwest.— [C. B. Richardson, Rusk. 

Southeast. — [A. Underwood, Brazoria. 

South and east. — [S. Harbert, Colorado. 

Southerly. — [Natt. Holman, Fayette. 

The month of May gives us south and southwest winds, with occasional shif tings to 
north and northwest in time of rain ; and if continued rains from the east and south- 
east, brisk winds from the south at least three days out of every seven. — [J. W. Jack- 
eon, Titus. 



Question 4 c. — The direction and force of the ivind in June. 

ALABAMA. 

In June, no continuous current for any length of time from any point of the com- 
pass. — [C. M. Howard, Autauga. 

East and southeast. — [J. W. Du Bose, Montgomery. 

South and west. — [J. C. Matthews, Dale. 

Pleasant breeze from the south; much warmer than during May. — [M. W. Hand, 
Greene. 

From south to northeast. — [H. C. Brown, Wilcox. 

Southeast. — [Knox, Minge, and Evans, Hale. 

South and southwest. — [J. R. Rogers, I3ullock. 

South, southeast, and southwest. — [I. F. Culver, Bullock. 

In June, winds from south and southwest. — [J. N. Gilmore, Sumter. 

From south, gentle. — [J. A. Callaway, Montgomery. 

Winds generally from the west when dry, as in May ; and from the south or south- 
west when rainy or cloudy. — [Dr. John Peurifoy, Montgomery. 



South.— [E. T. Dale, Miller. 
South.— [T. S. Edwards, Pope. 



ARKANSAS. 



From the east, gentle. — [John B. Carrin, Taylor. 
South. — [R. Gamble, Leon. 

GEORGIA. 

From the southwest.— [S. P. Odom, Dooly. 

From south and west.— [M. Kemp, Marion. 

From west and south. — [I^- M- Thompson, Jackson. 

South and southwest.— [William A. Harris, Worth. 

Variable. — [William Joues, Clarke. 

Southeast aud west.— [Timothy Fussell, Coffee. 

LOUISIANA. 

Generally in June the winds are from the south.— [John A. Maryman, East Feliciana. 



422 KEPORT UPON COTTON INSECTS. 

MISSISSIPPI. 

In June, ■winds daily witla moderate force from soutli-sontliwest mostly. Same in 
July and August. lu these last sometimes a cyclone of several days, approaching 
from east or southeast and closing from northwest. Generally the winds are so regu- 
lar daily from May to Sejjtember, so like the sea breeze, that we speak of them as sea 
breezes. — [D. L. Phares, Wilkinson. 

No prevailing winds, but thunder-clouds, forming and moving from all points of 
the compass, preceded and accompanied by more or less rain. — Dr. E. H. Anderson, 
Madison. 

Southwest; velocity 8 miles per hour. — [C. Welch, Covington. 

South. — [Kenneth Clark, Chickasaw. 

South and southwest. — [J. W. Burch, Jefferson. 

South. — [C. F. Sherriod, Lowndes. 

South, southwest, and northwest. — [W. Spillman, Clark. 

NORTH CAROLINA. 

Southwest. — [J. Evans, Cumberland. 

SOUTH CAROLINA. 

South, southwest, and south by west. — [James W. Grace, Colleton. 
South winds. — [Paul S. Felder, Orangeburgh. 

June ; same as May, with occasional east winds (generally southwest). — [James C. 
Brown, Barnwell. 

TENNESSEE. 

West, southwest, and south rarely. Southwest predominating. — [A. W. Hunt, M. 
D., Perry. 
Some very hard winds from the south and southwest. — [John McMillan, Decatur. 

TEXAS. 

South. — [Samuel Davis, Hunt. 

In June, iH'oO, twenty-two days of south wind, three east, and two north, the remain- 
der without wind ; lH(il, twenty-two days south wind, the rest shifting about. The 
average force about t hree miles per hour. Our prevailing winds for three- fourths of the 
year are from the south. There is scarcely a day without some wind, beginning at 8 or 
9 a. m. and continuing till.') or (i p. ui ; then the wind lulls.— [J. M. Glasco, Upshur. 

Usually about six weeks from the 15th of Juno to last July or earlier, variable winds 
and squally weather (thunder-squalls), after which the weather settles into regular 
south, southeast, or southwest winds, with from two weeks' to two months' drought. — 
[W. Barnes, Cherokee. 

South, southeast, and southwest. — [R. Wipprecht, Comal. 

South.— [H. J. II. Brensing, Miller. 

South, moderately brisk. — [O. H. P. Garrett, Washington. 

Continuous rains from the east and southeast, heavy and sudden thunder-storms 
from the south and west ; the prevailing wind is mostly south. — [J. H. Kancher, Austin, 

Southwest. — [C. B. Richardson, Rusk. 

Southeast.-=-[A. Underwood, Brazoria. 

South and east. — [S. Harbert, Colorado. 

South aud southwest. — Natt. Holman, Fayette. 

June gives us south winds, shifting to southwest and west in case of rain if the 
weather is dry, the winds are invariably south, breeze mild generally, but often brisk 
aud boisterous three or four days before a rain. — [J. W. Jackson, Titus. 



Question 4/. — Whether, in your opinion, there are winds from the south that are siifficicntlt/ 
strong and constant to counteract the prevailing trade-ivinds which arc ioivard the equator? 

ALABAMA. 

I can scarcely credit the suggestion that the wind is suflSciently strong or continuous 
from the south to have much influence in the transportation of the moth. — [C. M. 
Howard, Autauga. 

Yes. — [Knox, Minge, and Evans, Hale. 

It is my opinion it does not, or if it does is not of long duration. One thing, how- 
ever, is true, that in the summer and autumn, should we have a constant breeze from 
the south for twenty-four hours, we will as certainly have rain, whether the current is 
strong or not. The south winds always bring rain in twenty-four to thirty-six hours. — 
[II. Hawkins, Barbour. 

While I think the wind is often strong enough from the south to drive before it the 



APPENDIX II ANSWERS TO CIRCULAR. 423 

caterpillar-fly, I am not at all inclined to the opinion that in that way they get here 
(unless it be the fly of the army worm); and while I am not sutKciently informed of 
the state they continue in during tbe winter, or the transformations they may pass 
1hi<i-ugh, I believe they exist hero. — [Andi'cw Jay, Conecuh. 

Trade-winds have but little influence in this part of Alabama.— [J. R. Rogers, Bul- 
lock. 

Should think not. — [C. C. Howard, Autauga. 

South winds but seldom i)revail for longer than twenty-four hours; occasionally for 
two days, with decided prevalence. — [P. T. Graves, Lowndes. 

I think in this section they are. — [R. S. Williams, Montgomery. 

I am of the opinion that there are winds from the south to counteract the trade- 
winds. — [J. N. Gilmore, Sumter. 

I think there are. — [I. F. Culver, Bullock. 

There are no storms of wind sufficiently strong to affect the trade-winds, unless it 
may be the equinoctial gales, which usually, in the last days of September or lirst of 
October, are pretty severe, and most commouly come from the northeast with rain. — 
[Dr. John Peurifoy, Montgomery. 

Under the theory of its gradual spreading from south to north, we may suppose a 
seaboard source of infection, and one from the soathwest and the State of Alabama. — 
[A. R. Grote. 

I have no doubt hut at times, more particularly in times of great blows, that Ihe 
winds blowing from the Gulf inland will be sufficient to counteract the prcvaUlng trade- 
Kinds, but not one time in ten days or twenty days does this happen, as all the winds, 
or nine out of ten from the southwest, bring raiu ; we having after July little 
or no raiu until frost, wind is most of the time from west to northwest. — [P. D. I3owles, 
Conecuh. 

There are, from June to September. — [M. W. Hand, Greene. 

Do not think the winds now have any elftct on the moth. — [H. A. Stolenwerck, 
Perry. 

Trade-winds do not affect us. The wind is from every point of the compass. During 
summer the wind is mostly from the southwest. — [R. H. Powell, Bullock. 

No.— [I. D. Driesbach, Baldwin. 

I can't say definitely. I think we have, as during February and March the winds 
blow down a gre.at many trees here. The southern border of this country is within 
50 miles of the Gulf of Mexico, hence we have heavy Gulf winds. — [J. C. Matthews, 
Dale. 

ARKANSAS. 

I am of the opinion that there are winds from the south of sufficient force and length 
to counteract the trade-winds blowing toward the equator.— [T. S. Edwards, Pope. 
I do. — [Norborne Young, Columbia. 
Yes.— [E. T. Dale, Miller. 

FLORIDA. 

In this section we have no worms, I think because we have not cultivated much 
cotton. If the northern wind from the cot ton districts blew them here they would have 
no respect for the size of our fields. If the south winds carry them up into Alabama, 
they must be advised of the scarcity of forage here and pass over us. I am satisfied 
the moth commences his ravages often within twenty feet from where it was hatched. 
Winds no doubtoften move them short distances from where they start into new-ground 
cotton where none ever lived before.— [J. M. McGehee, Santa Rosa. 

None. — [John B. Carrin, Taylor. 

No trade- winds. — [R. Gamble, Leon. 

The sea voyage from Jacksonville was rather rough, and I found it impossible to do 
any writing on board. When we were opposite Jupiter Light, Florida, about six miles 
from the shore, two Lepidoptera came on board, an Arctia nais {?) and a Microlepid- 
opteron. The officers of the steamer told me that sometimes many "flies" came on 
board in favorable nights, as well on the coast of Florida as from these islands. This 
shows how easily insects cau be carried to and from the Bahamas.— [E. A. Schwarz, 
Nassau, New Providence, Bahamas. 

GEORGIA. 

I think that the north winds come in so constant and so heavy that the moths are 
very likely brought from that direction. Very often in stormy weather in spring and 
summer we find various kinds of strange birds and fowls blown here and left; they 
are foreign to our climate, and it is more than likely that the regular cotton-worm 
comes in'^from that quarter.— [E. M. Thompson, Jaclison. 

I cannot say that there are, though we have some very strong winds from the south, 
but our most disastrous winds are from the southwest.— [M. Kemp, Marion. 

My impression is that south winds are very gentle universally. East and northwest 
winds only are sufficiently strong to drive the moths before them.— [A. J. Cheves, 
Macon. 



424 



REPORT UPON COTTON INSECTS. 



"We are of the opinion that there are no winds from the south strong enough to coun- 
teract the prevailing trade-winds. — [S. P. Odom, Dooly. 
Not often ; only occasionally. — [W. A. Harris, Worth. 
I do not believe there are. — [William Jones, Clarke. 
It is thought not. — [D. P. Luke, Berrien. 



LOUISIANA. 

I think there are. — [H. B. Shaw, Concordia. 

I do not think there are winds from the south that are sufficiently strong and con- 
stant to counteract the trade-winds. — [John A. Maryman, East Feliciana. 

MISSISSIPPI. 

The trade- winds referred to are those along the Gulf stream, off the Atlantic coast 
I presume, and have nothing to do with our inland currents ; but if referring to the 
equatorial and polar currents, that form the trade-winds near the equator, I do not 
think that there are any southerly winds in this latitude that are stroug enough to 
counteract the polar current moving towards the equator.— [Dr. E. H. Anderson, Mad- 
ison. 

There are certainly such winds here. — [C. Welch, Covington. 

I do not believe there are. The winds are rarely very stroug, but constant. — [Ken- 
neth Clarke, Chickasaw. 

Yes ; beyond a doubt nearly every year, perhaps I should say everj' year, such winds 
occur. — [D. L. Phares, Wilkinson. 

Hardly think so; we generally have light winds. — [J. W. Burch, Jefferson. 

Our strongest winds are all from the south. — [C. F. Sberriod, Lowndes. 

Rarely ever have strong winds from the south long at a time; our strongest winds 
are from southwest and southeast. — [W. Spillman, Clark. 

NORTH CAROLINA. 

Yes.— [J. Evans, Cumberland. 

SOUTH CAROLINA. 

During June, July, and August we have strong south winds, beginning about eight 
o'clock in the morning and lasting until late at night, plenty stroug enough to bring 
moths from a great distance. — [Paul S. Felder, Orangeburg. 

Only in the months of February, March, and September. — [James W. Grace, Colle- 
ton. 

In this locality the winds from the south are sufficient to counteract the trade- 
winds. — [James C. Brown, Barnwell. 

TENNESSEE. 

Prevailing winds of July are from southwest and south, latter predominating. I 
cannot remember to have observed winds from the south sufficiently strong to have 
conteracted the prevailing trade-winds toward the equator. — [A. W. Hunt, M. D., 
Perry. 

There are times when our south and southwest winds are strong enough to counter- 
act any other. — [John McMillan, Decatur. 

TEXAS. 

The south winds many years ago, I believe, were more frequent and stronger than 
later years ; hence I am satisfied it rains more frequently aud more rain falls through 
the year than it did thirty aud thirty-five years ago. I do not think the north winds 
prevail to that extent during the winter months, neither are they generally as cold. I 
cannot say with a degree of certainty whether the south WMuds are sufficiently strong 
to counteract the trade-winds which are toward the equator.— [O. H. P. Garrett, Wash- 
ington. 

These are caused by the large surface of prairie in the State, which turn our north- 
east trade, or what would be such, to south- southeast or southwest. — [W. Barnes, 
Cherokee. 

We are too far inland to be affected by trade-winds ; our winds are more like sea- 
breezes. Wo are about 2.")0 miles inland. — [J. M. Glasco, Upshur. 

Yes. — [Saul Davis, Hunt. 

There are. — [H. J. H. Brensing, Miller. 

They are strong and constant enough. — [Reed Wipprecht, Comal. 

Do not believe our winds are sufficiently stroug or continuous to have any effect on 
the trade-winds. — [P. S. Clarke, Waller. 

I think winds from the south are strong enough to counteract winds toward the 
equator. — [P. S. Watts, Hardin. 

In some years the winds are sufficiently strong to have that effect. I have noticed 
that the strong winds from the south and southwest generally occur in a dry year. 



APPENDIX II ANSWERS TO CIRCULAR. 425 

Particularly constant west winds are generally a sign of continuous dry weather. — 
[J. H. Krancher, Austin. 

They are.— [\V. T. Hill, Walker. 

Decidedly so here.— [C. B. Richardson, Rusk. 

Ours are doubtless the trade winds, being on the border of the torrid zone. — [A. Un- 
derwood, Brazoria. 

I think there is. — [S. Harbert, Alley ton. 

Yes ; the wind in this locality, in June and July, is invariably from the south and 
southwest, and at times constant and strong except in case of heavy rains; then it 
shifts to the northwest and but for a short time. We have no prevailing wave winds 
here at this season of the year. — [J. W. Jackson, Titus. 



QUESTION 4 fir. 
The prevailing direction of the wind from July till frost. 

ALABAMA. 

Am not certain, but think from south and southwest during July and August, and 
west and north during September. — [J. R. Rogers, Bullock. 

South, west of south, and west. — [R. S. Williams, Montgomery. 

The wind in July is generally from south and west, in August aud until frost con- 
tinually changing. — [J. N. Gilmore, Sumter. 

The wind blows but little until the approach of fall, when the prevailing direction 
is east.— [R. W. Russell, Lowndes. 

From the south. — [John D. Johnston, Sumter. 

West aud northwest. — I. F. Culver, Bullock. 

From south. — [J. N. Callaway, Montgomery. 

The prevailing winds of summer are very much like those of June, increased some- 
times to thunder-storms, which soon pass oif. Wet weather promotes the multiplica- 
tion of the cotton-worms. The weather becomes showery in August and impedes very 
much the application of poison. — [Dr. John Peurifoy, Montgomery. 

Generally from northwest.— [H. C. Brown, Wilcox. 

From west to northwest. — [P. D. Bowles, Conecuh. 

West and northwest. — [J. C. Matthews, Dale. 

East aud southeast.— [J. W. Du Bose, Montgomery. 

The wind during the time indicated veers from one point to another so often as rarely 
to be debtor to itself. In other words it is so variable that we have no wind of long 
duration from any quarter. — [C. M. Howard, Autauga. 

Various directions. — [James M. Harrington, Monroe. 

From south and southwest. — [M. W. Hand, Greene. 

Southeast. — [Knox, Minge, aud Evans, Hale. 

East and west. — [J. D. Driesbach, Baldwin. 

They are only occasionally from the south. — [H. Hawkins, Barbour. 

In our locality the wind has no constant direction. When we have settled weather 
it most generally is from northwest; when indicating rain it changes to the south or 
southeast, and about the middle of September, when equinoctial storms are looked for, 
the winds are from northeast, east, and southeast.— [Andrew Jay, Conecuh. 

ARKANSAS. 

From southwest. — [T. S. Edwards, Pope. 

From the south and west.— [Nor borne Young, Columbia. 

South and southwest.— [E. T. Dale, Miller. 

FLORIDA. 

From east or west.— [F. M. Meekln, Alachua. 

From all the points of the compass.— [John B. Carrin, Taylor. 

Easterly. — [John Bradford, Leon. 

South, southeast, and southwest.— [R. Gamble, Leon. 

GEORGIA. 

Most generally from the south and southwest ; occasionally from the northeast.— 
[S. P. Odom, Dooly. 
Every direction.— [D. P. Luke, Berrien. 
South and northeast.— [William A. Harris, Worth. 
From southwest, northwest, and northeast.— [M. Kemp, Marion. 
Mostly from northeast.— [Timothy Fuasell, Coffee. 
Variable.— [William Jones, Clarke. 
July, prevailing winds south and west.— [E. M. Thompson, Jackson. 



426 REPORT UPON COTTON INSECTS. 

Prevailhuj (lirection of winds, Saint Catherine's Island, coast of Georgia, August, 1878. — 
10th, southwest; 11th, southwest ; l'2th, southwest ; 13th, southwest ; i4th, southwest ; 

ITitli smith* IfiMi nortlipnsl. r 17th south! Irttli. northwest,: IDth wrfist • "Jflth vd-pmL • 




20tli, west ; 
2Gth, north- 



LOUISIANA. 



In July the winds are from the south and southeast. After July they vary. — [John 
A. Maryman, East Feliciana. 

The prevailiuj); direction of the wind from July till frost is from the south. — [Dr. I. 
U. Ball, West Feliciana. 

MISSISSIPPI. 

From east to south and south to southwest is the general direction of the wind from 
July to frost, yet it frequently boxes the compass during that period, and from the 
15th of September to frost is often from northeast to north. — [Dr. E. H. Anderson, Mad- 
ison. 

From some southerly point varying to east. — [D. L. Phares, Wilkinson. 

From southwest. — [C. Welch, Covington. 

Mostly south. — [Kenneth Clarke, Cliickasaw. 

From the south. — [C. F. Sherriod, Lowndes. 

Southerly and westerly until about the equinox, when we have northeast storms 
occasionally. — [.J. W. Burch, Jetlerson. 

July, August, to September 15, mostly south ; after that, west to north. — [W. Spill- 
man, Clark. 

NORTH CAROLINA. 



Southwest. — [.T. Evans, Cumberland. 
Southwest. — [F. I. Smith, Halifax. 



SOUTH CAROLINA. 

South and southwest and south by west. — [James W. Grace, Colleton. 
South winds. — [Paul S. Felder, Orangeburgh. 

From July till Irost from the east around to southwest; mostly from southeast to 
southwest. — [James C. Brown, Barnwell. 

TENNESSEE. 

Prevailing directions of winds from July until frost are as follows: July, southwest and 
south, latter predominating ; August, southwest and west, former predominating ; Sep- 
tember, southwest rarely, west and northwest, west predominating ; October, west and 
northwest, latter predominating. — [A. W. Hunt, Perry. 

Winds vary a good deal, mostly from southwest, northwest, and west.— [John Mc- 
Millan, Decatur. 

TEXAS. 

South and southeast till three or four days before frost, then changed to northwest 
and north for three or four days. — [Samuel Davis, Hunt. 

South.— [P. S. Clarke, Waller. 

Southeast.— [A. Schroeter, Burnet. 

Southeast. — [H. J. H. Breusing, Bowie. 

South to southwest. — [W. Barces, Cberokee. 

July, August, and September, south, southeast, southwest; October, changeable; 
November, northers set in ; frost. — [R. Wipprecht, Comal. 

The winds are varied from July to frost, but mostly from south, south by east and 
south by west, and more or less from the east. — [O. H. P. Garrett, Washington. 

The winds from July till frost are from the south. We have in all the months squalls 
from the northwest and north, but they only last a day or two. — [J. M. Glasco, Upshur. 

The winds in July and August are about the same as in the preceding two months ; 
in September north winds begin to occur, in October becoming more frequent, the tirst 
frost generally occurring about the middle of November. In 1859 in the latter half of 
November we had two severe snow-storms in one week. Up to date the present year, 
the 18th, no frost. — [J. H. Krancher, Austin. 

From the south it occurs at special times all through the year (on change of weather) 
that we have a west wind, an east and northeast wind, but this does not last long. — 
[W. T.Hill, Walker. 

South and southwest. — [C. B. Richardson, Rusk. 

Southeast. — [A. Underwood, Brazoria. 

From south to east. — [S. Harbert, Colorado. 

South to southwest. — [J. W. Jackson, Titus. 

More generally from the south ; sometimes a damp east wind, backed by a " Yankee 
norther."— [Natt. Holman, Fayette. 



APPENDIX II — ANSWERS TO CIRCULAR, 427 

Question 4/i. — The side of ilie field on ivliich the worma first begin to xvork. 

ALABAMA. 

In this section wo have what is called a fence law; the plantations are not fenced, 
but owners are required to keep stock within inclosures. It is, thetetore, imjiossibie to 
tell upon which side of the field the worms first be<,nn to woik. We think, liowever, 
they usnally begin where the cotton is most luxuriant and tender.— [J. B. Callaway, 
Montgomery. 

Moist places, and where the cotton is most luxuriant.— [II. Tutwiler, Hale. 

The worms first begin the work of destructit)n iu bottom places, where the cotton is 
rank. They soon spread to the hillsides and more elevated places. Tliey h:( vo a 
peculiar odor which experts recognize before they see them.— [Dr. John Peurifoy, 
Montgomery. 

In the damp spots, where the cotton is most luxuriant, without regard to side of the 
field. — [C. C. Howard, Autauga. 

The worms, as a rule, make their appearance in the lowest spots of land, where there 
is the rankest growth of cotton.— [R. W. Ru.ssell, Lowndes. 

No particular locality. They have been known to make their first appearance in the 
middle of large fields of cotton ; as often there, probably, as on the sides of the field. — 
[John D. Johnston, Sumter. 

The worm has no particular side to commence work on. They invariably commence 
on the best cotton. — [J. N. Gilmore, Sumter. 

The side of a field, north, south, east, or west, has no influence over the first appear- 
ance of the worm. — [P. T. Graves, Lowndes. 

No particular side. — [I. F. Culver, Bullock. 

The only time I ever noticed where the worm first made its appearance was on the 
south side of the field. — [R. F. Henry, Pickens. 

They generally attack the cotton-field on the south or west side and travel to the 
north or east. — [George W. Thagard, Crenshaw. 

No particular side ; generally in low bottoms and in particular places on every plan- 
tation. I think every planter knows the spot on which they first appear on his place. — 
[H. A. Stolenwerck, Perry. 

Black prairie soils or soils producing a sappy growth are favorable to the worm. 
Clayey soils are not. The worm is always later in destroying cotton shaded by trees. — 
[J. W. Du Bose, Montgomery. 

If cotton is of uniform height, the worms invariably begin work where there is the 
most shade either early or late in the day. But if plant is rank and green in spots, the 
worm will begin in the rank green spots before they attack the small plants with 
brown or yellow leaves, irrespective of morning or evening shades. — [P. D. Bowles, 
Conecuh. 

No particular side. Generally begin their work of destruction in the most luxuriant 
cotton, regardless of locality. — [L D. Driesbach, Baldwin. 

The south side probably of tener than any other; such is my observation. — [CM. 
Howard, Autauga. 

The worms commence in the center of the field and always in the same place, and 
from there spread over the whole place. — [A. D. Edwards, Macon. 

All over the field at the same time. Just as apt to find them on the north side as 
the south side. — [J. C. Matthews, Dale. 

Where the cotton is rankest. — [D. Lc*, Lowndes. 

On the west side. — [R. H. Powell, Bullock. 

There is no particular side ; as often in the center as anywhere else. — [H. C. Brown, 
Wilcox. 

No particular side. — [Knox, Minge, and Evans, Hale. 

Generally on the south, though not always.— [M. W. Hand, Greene. 

The side of the field has nothing to do with the commencing of the caterpillar.— [H. 
Hawkins, Barbour. 

I have no experience that the caterpillar has any preference as to where it shall 
commence its work. — [Andrew Jay, Conecuh. 

Always the west side. — [J. R. Rogers, Bullock. 

ARKANSAS. 

I find no difference with regard to the sides of the field ; all the field is affected 
alike. — [T. S. Edwards, Pope. 
Not one side more than another. — [Norborne Young, Columbia. 

FLORIDA. 

The east side.— [John B. Carrin, Taylor. 

No particular side ; they always begin in the bottoms and rich places.— [John Brad- 
ford, Leon. • 

They never attack from the sides of the field.— [R. Gamble, Leon. 



428 REPORT UPON COTTON INSECTS. 



No particular side ; usually uear the woodland or swamp, — [M. Kemp, Marion. 

The part where they do the most noticeable work tlepends upon the tenderness and 
vigorous growth of the plant during July, August and September. — [A. J. Cheves, 
Macon. 

No particular side ; as often in the middle as on either side. — [Timothy Fussell 
CoflFee. 

West side, traveling east ; have seen them departing, mud in road full of them. — 
[William Harris, Worth. 

They commence work on the south side and travel northward. — [E. M. Thompson, 
Jackson. 

On the west or south side and sometimes in the center. — [S. P. Odom, Dooly. 

Generally the southwest. — [D. P. Luke, Berrien. 

On the most luxuriant spots in the center of the field. — [William Jones, Clarke. 

LOUISIANA. 

On my own plantation they began to work on the southeast side, and I have noticed 
that they make their appearance on or near the same spot. — [Dr. I. U. Ball, West 
Feliciana. 

They appear on no particular side of the fields. — [John A. Maryman, East Feliciana. 

MISSISSIPPI. 

The insect appears first in the wetter parts of the field, wherever they may be situ- 
ated, and they are often found commencing in the bottoms, which are naturally wettest. 
When a basin exists in the middle of a field they are most apt to start there. I never 
saw them appear at the edge of a field. — [Dr. E. II. Anderson, Madison. 

They usually begin in the rankest cotton. — [C. Welch, Covington. 

They begin as often in the middle as anywhere else. — [Kenneth Clark, Chickasaw. 

As to sides of the field on which the worms first begin to work, my observarions are 
that they commence of tener in the middle than on any particular side. — [John C. Rus- 
sell, Madison. 

Rarely, if ever, commence on any side or margin, and very often eat out all the inte- 
rior an(i never reach the margins if bounded by forests. They usually begin at some 
])oint in tlie interior of the field, and year after year at about the same point. — [D. L. 
Phares, Wilkinson. 

As often in the middle as anywhere else and always appear in the same spot first ; 
as in my field they have appeared in the same spot for ten years ; it is low, wet bottom 
land.— [J. W. Burch, Jeflerson. 

The south. — [C. F. Sherriod, Lowndes. 

It commi>nly attacks where the plants are in vigorous growth, but sometimes the 
reverse is the case. — [J. Culbertsou, Raukin. 

They never commence near the woods, but select the richest spots and gradually 
spread over the field. — [J. G. G. Garrett, Claiborne. 

No particular side, except where they pass from one plantation to another, which is 
ften the case with the first crop of them.— [W. Spillman, Clark. 

They first begin in some flat or depression in the fields; not at the side. — [George F. 
Webb, Amite. 

NORTH CAROLINA. 

North and west.— [F. I. Smith, Halifax. 

Have never noticed any difference. — [J. Evans, Cumberland. 

In a field bounded by woods on the east they never touched a j)lant near the wood. — 
[J. Stone, Gaston. 

SOUTH CAROLINA. 

As often from one side as another, and just as frequently in the middle or at several 
points at once through the entire field. — [James W. Grace, Colleton. 

Any spot which has a low, moist, black .soil. — [Paul S. Felder, Orangeburgh. 

No particular side, but in the most healthy and thrifty spot in the field ; if it be three 
or four acres in the middle of 100 acres. — [J. C. Brown. 

TENNESSEE. 

The dampest side of the field, provided it is well exposed to the sun, is generally first 
to sutier.—[A. W. Hunt, Perry. 

TEXAS. 

The worm begins to work on the highest point in the field almost certain in this 
country. The worms are to be found some distance iu the field, hardly ever near 
timber or the fencing. The highest, richest black land is where they first appear, and, 
strange to say, they will frequently leave some cotton untouched uear timber about 
the fences. — [0. H. P. Garrett, Washington. 



APPENDIX II ANSWERS TO CIRCULAR. 429 

If the moths are in great numbers, the worms begin their work all over the largest 
fields at once. This year there were not many worms ; they wandered from one field 
to another. No particular side was ever noted to be favored by the worms.— [ R. Wip- 
prechtj Comal. 

There is no particular side that they prefer. Some farmers say they will feed with 
the wind.— [P. S. Clarke, Waller. 

From lowest wet and swamp parts of the field.— [H. J. H. Brensing, Bowie. 

The worm most always begins its work in the middle of a patch, generally in places 
where the cotton is most luxuriant. For the past two years it has commenced du the 
southwest side, the moth coming in the direction of the Colorado River.— [J. II. Krau- 
cher, Austin. 

Generally near the center or away from the edges of the field.— [W. T. Hill, Walker. 

The first worms are generally near the middle of the cotton-field, and the second 
crop spread in all directions.- [C. B. Richardson, Rusk. 

On every side and all over simultaneously. — [A. Underwood, Brazoria. 

They generally attack the youngest cotton first, no matter which side that may 
be. — [S. Harbert, Colorado. 

Generally the south side and center, except that side is low damp land. High points 
appear to be the first points attacked. — [J. W. Jackson, Titus. 

Sometimes in one place and again in another. Generally where the cotton is the 
rankest and largest. Not anyways choice of sides. — [Natt. Holman, Fayette. 

Generally in or near the center. — [P. S. Watts, Hardin. 

No particular side. — [W. Barnes, Cherokee. 



Question 4 i. — Do local topographical features influence the extent of the wonn's ravages f 

ALABAMA. 

They seem to prefer cotton grown in black lands, as they generally make their first 
appearance on that character of land and eat the cotton grown there first before mi- 
grating to other lands ; and there are instances of their making their appearance for 
three or four years in succession on the same piece of land. — [John D. Johnston, Sum- 
ter. 

I am living on a line between the black or prairie lands and the sandy lands in this 
county. This black belt is from 15 to 20 miles wide, running nearly east and west. 
The first worms are invariably heard of in the black belt, and this is even so on the 
south side of the black lands. There is not an intelligent farmer in this section but 
can point out the field and the place in that field where he will find his first crop of 
worms before they appear. They invariahhj put in their first appearance in the same lo- 
cality in particular fields. This has reference to what we call the first crop of irorms. 
The moth that is developed from this crop may be, and no doubt is, carried about by 
the winds. But why or how could the moth, surviving the winter, invariably select 
these particular starting points ? — [R. S. Williams, Montgomery. 

I think they do.— [I. F. Culver, Bullock. 

They are more numerous and destructive on black prairie and bottom lands. They 
make their appearance from two to three weeks earlier on the black land than on 
sandy and light colored lands. I am of the opinion that this is due, at least in part, 
to the fact that the crops are earlier on black lands. — [J. R. Rogers, Bullock. 

They frequently do less damage to the foliage where they begin on places as indi- 
cated above, the following brood seeming to prefer untouched parts. — [C. C. Howard, 
Autauga. 

Have never known the cotton- worm to feed upon any other plant than cotton. — [R. 
F. Henry, Pickens. 

Low lands as a rule are more favorable for the rapid and destructive development 
of the worm, for the reason that the moth, guided by instinct, deposits her eggs where 
tlie food is in the best condition and most abundant to nourish the infant worm. 
Where, by fertility of the soil and sufficient rain, the upland crops are as luxuriant 
in foliage as the bottom or low land, they are visited as early and as destructively as 
the low lands. Places in many fields escape their ravages. — [P. T. Graves, Lowndes. 

I think not. But I do think that topographical features have a great influence in 
producing a larger or smaller number of the caterpillar. Dense and moist localities 
appear to be the most favorable for the protection of the moth during the winter. — [I. 
D. Driesbach, Baldwin. 

Does not.— [H. C. Brown, Wilcox. 

Low lands are always attacked first; and, where the weeds are large and thick, this 
is a protection from tlie heat of the sun. — [J. C. Matthews, Dale. 

They are more destructive and appear earlier in black or ijrairie lands than on gray 
or sandy. — [R. H. Powell, Bullock. 



430 EEPORT UPON COTTON INSECTS. 

The low wet places, where the plant is most luxuriant, are first attacked. The rich 
Blongh lands are generally much injured before the thinner and dry uplands. — [H. A. 
Jstolenwerck, Perry. 

None that I have discovered. — [James M. Harrington, Monroe. 

The richer the land and the ranker the cotton the greater the ravages of the worm. 
— [D. Lee, -Lowndes. 

As to local topographical features' influences, will say that the worm is first reported 
in this State in the lime- belt or prairie lands in and around Montgomery Conn ' y, where 
the lands are level, while in this county the greater part of our lands are undulating 
and hilly. The present year the worms have destroyed all the cotton-leaves iu Beat 
No. :J, which is adjoining this, No. 11, where they have only honey-combed it up to this 
time. Beat No. 11 is due east of No. 3. During the years 1867, '68, '69, the worm failed 
to attack cotton planted on second-years lauds, but have since, equal with old lands. 
— [P. D. Bowles, Conecuh. 

They do, materially, being much less destructive in the hilly or sections inters])ersed 
with forests than on the level, open prairie. My own plantation is surrounded by forest, 
except a small space on the northwest. I never have had the worm come in force 
nntil most of my neighbors' crops have been entirely denuded — at least fifteen days 
later. Sometimes they do me little or no dam;ig6, while a few miles distant destroy 
fullv one-fourth. My plantation is mostly level, about one-half prairie slough land.— 
[M. W. Hand, Greene. 

Stiff, post-oak land. — [Knox, Minge, and Evans, Hale. 

They do ; but I am unable to define the features iu a locality most favorable for their 
ravages. — [C. M. Howard, Autauga. 

They are more destructive iu the black prairie lands than in the pine lands. — [A. D. 
Edwards, Macon. 

Local features and nothing else determine the ravages of the worm. Low, damp 
spots, in different parts of the same field, are attacked at the same time, while other 
portions are left unmolested until the general crop of caterpillars make their appear- 
ance — the third crop or generation — and when, in a few days after the hatching of this 
crop, not a leaf is to be seen in the whole field. — [H. Hawkins, Barbour. 

I think this may be said of local influences : A field entirely surrounded by woods 
is decidedly less subject to the worm than open plantations, and it is to be seen in 
all such fields, that on tlieir borders the worm refuses to eat up the leaves, unless it be 
the army worm, as has been alluded to; they take everything before them. Another 
observation of mine is, that cotton planted among peach-trees, if not entirely pre- 
served, is by no means entirely destroyed or killed by them. I think the !-ame true as 
to cotton about or under a persimmon tree, from which I conclude that acids i^roperly 
used might prevent. — [Andrew Jay, Conecuh. 

On many or all plantations I know the caterpillar invariably appears in certain spots 
before it is elsewhere found. These spots are not distinguished by any discoverable 
(at least to me) cause or harbor for producing the moth or protecting it. — [J. W. Da 
iiose, Montgomery. 

It sometimes occurs that an acre only, or a quarter or a half of a field, remains un- 
touched by the worms, when in all the balance the leaves are totally destroyed up to 
the margin of a line. And the cause of this we cannot tell, except it be toughness of 
the leaves, developed by the peculiarity of the soil ; for the worms prefer the tender 
leaves iu every stage of their existence. — [Dr. John Peurifoy, Montgomery. 

ARKANSAS. 

I think not. I can see no difference in rough or smooth or old or new land. The 
worst piece of ground, or rather cotton, is in old land, and the next in new. — [T. S. Ed- 
wards, Pope. 

Yes. Our field, infested with worms, is separated from another by a narrow strip of 
timber l.')0 yards wide, and iu the second field there are no worn)s. While in other 
fields, where are no obstructions between them, such as corntields, timber, «fec., the. 
worms travel from one field to another, gradually, as they stnp the field where they 
first appear.— [E. T. Dale, Miller, 

FLORIDA. 

In small fields where they are surrounded by dense woods and where cotton was 
never planted before it is always much less affected by the worm for a year or two. 
New-ground cotton is certaiulj' less affected by the worm. — [J. M. McGehee, Santa 
Rosa. 

We think not. — [John B. Carrin, Taylor. 

No.— [K. Gamble, Leon. 

GEORGIA. 

If so, I have failed to note it. A patch of cotton shaded by trees and houses clear 
Tip to plantation residence is generally first attacked and suffers badly. — [William A. 
Harris, Worth. 



APPENDIX II ANSWERS TO CIRCULAR. 431 

I think local topographical features have but little to do with the worm.— [E. M. 
Thompson, Jackson. 

They do, as low swamp lands and fresh or newly-cleared lands are the most subject 
to them. — [M. Kemp, Marion. 

I think not. — [D. P. Luke, Berrien. 

Only so far as they promote the growth of the cotton. — [A. J. Cheves, Macon. 

I think not. — [William .Jones, Clark. 

We are of the opinion that it does not. — [S. P. Odom, Dooly. 

LOUISIANA. 

Think not. This plantation is entirely isolated. It has one mile of woods on one 
Bide, two miles on the other and on the back, with a lake three-fourths of a mile wide 
along the entire front, but we are eaten up by the worms about as soon as our neigh- 
bors. — [H. B. Shaw, Concordia. 

I write only of my own parish, where the lands in cultivation are almost altogether 
uplands. We have very few plantations on the river or alluvial lands, so far as to 
amount to a very small percentage of the aggregate. On river and bayou lands, which 
are alluvial to the west and south of us, the army worm appears usually earlier than 
with us and increases more rapidly, and is therefore more destructive. The reasons 
for this are due perhaps to the raukuess and succulence of the cotton-plant on allu- 
vial lands in comparison with its growth on our poorer and drier lands. — [Douglas M. 
Hamilton, West Feliciana. 

Where the lands are Jow and moist and the plant luxuriant the extent of ravage is 
the greatest. — [John A. Maryman, East Feliciana. 

They appear earlier and are more destructive on rich creek bottoms and alluvial 
lands. — [Dr. I. U. Ball, West Feliciana. 

MISSISSIPPI. 

I think the first brood introduced into a field would destroy the cotton upon which 
it was bred, until it went into chrysalis, without regard to any topographical features, 
and the second and third brood, &c., would widen the area unchecked by any local 
features, except a ditch or stream of water, which would check the progress of the 
worm. The worm sometimes eats the cotton along a line and does not pass the fur- 
row, because it fiuds there enough to eat before going into chrysalis.— [Dr. E. H. An- 
derson, Madison. 

They do. We often see fields in part of which all the foliage, young bolls, even 
half-grown bolls,' and the bark of older ones are completely consumed, when in other 
parts of the same field the plants remain intact, even though continuous in the same 
rows with that destroyed. The caterpillars refuse to pass a certain line. On one side 
of this line the plants are completely denuded ; on the other, untouched. They may 
cross this line, but will eat no cotton-leaf beyond it. If placed on the plant, they 
speedily abandon it, and will starve rather than eat it. Yet one sees little or nodifier- 
ence in the cotton on the two sides of this line. — [D. L. Phares, Wilkinson. 

Never heard of local topographical features having influence to extend the worm's 
ravages. — [John C. Russell, Madison. 

Very little.— [C. Welch, Covington. 

In reply to topographical features, you will notice how, strongly Dr. Phares alludes 
to the ins'ect eating up a line or along a line and leaving other plants untouched bor- 
dered by forests. The first is due, I think, to the fact of their finding enough to eat 
where they are quartered, and their indisposition to migrate unless impelled by hun- 
ger. The second, to the fact that the plane is not subject to the rays of the sun until 
the dew has passed off. This feature I have always noticed on the east side of a field. — 
[E. H. Anderson, Madison. 

Deep, rich, black land favors their production. Our county is partly sandy and 
hilly; the worms seldom trouble it. The eastern portion is black, open, prairie-ham- 
mock and some bottom, where they gire (is^f.s.— [Kenneth Clark, Chickasaw. 

To a certain extent low, moist lands first, where cotton is slow in starting to grow 
off. Hills or table lands are the last attacked.— [J. W. Burch, Jefferson. 

In flats and depressions their numbers are greatest and the damage most alarming. — 
[George F. Webb, Amite. 

NORTH CAROLINA. 

No ; but, unlike the worm further south, it seldom attacks the rankest growth of 
cotton in the bottoms, but prefers to feed on the smaller sized cotton on the ridges.— 
[J. Evans, Cumberland. 

SOUTH CAROLINA. 

Think not.— [James W. Grace, Colleton. 

This year they have eaten up the leaves of the cotton in the low, black, moist places, 
and stopped as soon as the gray, sandy laud was reached.— [Paul S. Felder, Orange- 
burgh. 

Not to any perceivable extent. — [James C. Brown, Barnwell. 



432 REPORT UPON COTTON INSECTS. 

TENNESSEE. 

Yes.— [A. W. Hunt, M. D., Perry. 

TEXAS. 

Low places are more exposed to tlie ravages of the worm. — [R. Wipprecht, Comal. 

No.— [P. S. Clarke, Waller. 

To some extent. More in some localities than in others. — [J. W. Jackson, Titus. 

Yes. — [Natt. Holman, Fayette. 

Low lands that retain sap or where the plant is tender. — [Samuel Davis, Hunt. 

I think not.— [P. S. Watts, Hardin. 

Cotton that is youngest is attacked first ; new lands or lands of thrifty growth. — 
[J. M. Glasco, Upshur. 

In this part of the country, neither mountain, forest, nor stream have proved to be 
a protection against their visits. — [A. Schroeter, Burnet. 

They do. I noticed this year in a field of 1") acres cotton, the foliage of which was 
nearly all eaten upon the '2d day of October, several spots of from one- quarter to one-half 
acres each on which there was not a worm. Not having had my attention directed to 
the matter, I did not examine to ascertain the cause. — [W. Barnes, Cherokee. 

In wet and damp places where cotton is most fresh, green, and tender. — [H. J. H. 
Brensing, Bowie. 

I am inclined to the opinion it does. It generally makes its appearance south and 
southeast of this county (Washington). It will appear in the same latitude of this 
county sooner than here. This, I think, is owing to altitude, as this county is higher. — 
[O. tL P. Garrett, Washington. 

High hills and mountains and broad rivers no doubt have some effect to check their 
depredations; also wide belts of timber; but this county being mostly a prairie county 
with occasional belts of timber the worm generally appears all over the county at the 
same time; the prairie farms bordering on Colorado County, the country between 
them and the Colorado plantations, being an unbroken prairie, have of late years been 
first affected, generally three weeks in advance of the farms lying further north. — 
r J. H. Krancher, Austin. 

No.— [W. T. Hill, Walker. 

I do not think it does. — [C B. Richardson, Rusk. 

Not; at all. — [A. Underwood, Brazoria. 

They do not. — [Stephen Harbert, Colorado. 



Question Aj. — Does or can ihc uiormfced upon any other plant than cotton, and have you 

ever known it to do so ? 

ALABAMA. 

Worms are confined to the cotton-plant for food. — [P. T. Graves, Lowndes. 

Never knew it to feed on anything but cotton. — [J. H. Smith and J. F. Calhoun, 
Dallas. 

The worms feed on nothing but cotton. — [R. W. Russell, Lowndes. 

No. — [.I. A. Callaway, Montgomery. 

The cotton-worms are generally very select in their diet, and generally confine them- 
selves to the cotton. We noticed on one occasion they ate the leaves of the egg-plant, 
which very much resembles the cotton in the texture of its leaves. — [Dr. John Peuri- 
foy, Montgomery. 

Have never known the cotton-worm to feed upon any other plant than cotton. — [R. 
F. Henry, Pickens. 

It feeds on nothing else than the cotton-plant, and when they have cleaned out a field 
they seek new pastures, always traveling east. — [R. H. Powell, Bullock. 

No. — [Knox, Miuge, and Evans, Hale. 

I have never known them to. — [A. D. Edwards, Macon. 

Don't think the worm can feed upon any other ])lant than cotton ; have never known 
or heard of them feeding on any other plant. — [H. Hawkins, Barbour. 

They survive on nothing else ; sometimes web in other leaves, but I don't think it 
amounts to anything.— [Andrew Jay, Conecuh. 

Never have known them to eat anything else. — [J. R. Rogers, Bullock. 

Have not known it to do so. — [C. C. Howard, Autauga. 

The worm does not feed on any other plant than cotton. I have tried them on vari- 
ous other plants and grasses, but they have never eaten them ; would die of starvation 
sooner. — [J. N. Gilmore, Sumter. 

On cotton alone. — [R. S. Williams, Montgomery. 

They do not. Never have known them to. In fact they go into the ground, those 



APPENDIX II ANSWERS TO CIRCULAR. 433 

whicli do not die on it. They often disappear in twenty- fonr Ik urs. I have seen the 
ground coveved to-day and uU yone to-morrow. — [J. C. Mat'hews, Dale. 

I have never known them to feed on any other plant.— [H. A. Stolenwerck, Perry. 

Can't, and never have. — [James M. Harrinjjton, Monroe. 

1 never knew the worm to eat any o^h(^r ])lant except cotton ; they web np in other 
phints but never eat it. — [ H. C. Brown, Wilcox. 

I have never known it to feed on any other than the cotton-plant. It is peculiar in 
its looks and habits from all other worms. — [I. D. Driesba<h, Baldwin. 

I have ntiver known of their feeding on anything bat the cotton-plant. — [C. M. How- 
ard, Autauga. 

1 believe it cannot and never does. — [J. W. Du Bose, Montgomery. 

I have never known the Aleiia argillacea to eat any other plant. — [D. Lee, Lowndes. 

None.— [M. W. Hand, Greene. 

ARKANSAS. 

I have never seen nor heard of them feeding on anything else. — [E. T. Dale, Miller. 
Only on the cotton. — [Noiborne Young, Columbia. 

FLORIDA. 

Have never heard of their feeding on anything else. — [John Bradford, Leon. 

I have never known it to feed on any other i)laut thau the cotton-plant. — [J. M. Mc- 
Gehee, Santa Rosa. 

It does. We have. — [John B. Carrin, Taylor. 

I believe that it does. I believe that the great loss by the ravages of the cotton 
caterpillar conld be avoided by simultaneous action by all interested and at small 
cost. The insect is indigenous to the country, consequently finds in the forest plants 
adapted to its wanls and would be present in the country were there not a stalk of 
cotton in it. — [R. Gamble, Leon. 

GEORGIA. 

The worm was never found by him (Henry Gaston) on anything but cotton, and he 
had noticed it leaving one patch of cotton and going to another when leaf failed and 
there was nothing for the worms to continue feeding upon. He had used Paris green, 
dusted in a dry state upon the leaves, and it killed the worms. Care had to be used 
by him to avoid the poison getting into his eyes or on sores or tender places of the 
body.— [A. R. Grote. 

I do not think they will eat anything but cotton.— [William Jones, Clarke. 

Never have known it to feed on anything but cotton.— -[William A. Harris, Worth. 

The worm sometimes feeds on corn-fodder; they eat also crop-grass. It may not be 
the same species of worm, but I think it is.— [E. M. Thompson, Jackson. 

Worms feed upon nothing but cotton, when they start on the cotton. — [Timothy Fus- 
sell. Coffee. 

I have never known them to feed on anything but cotton in this locality. — [M.Kemp, 
Marion. 

LOUISIANA. 

I have never known the cotton- worm to feed upon anything but the cotton-plant. — 
[John A. Maryman, West Feliciana. 

I have seen millions dying all over the field, surrounded by every species of veget.i- 
tion, but not a cotton-leaf.— [H. B. Shaw, Concordia. 

The army worm feeds exclusively on the cotton-plant, and its existence terminates' 
when it has destroyed this utterly. ' Millions of them, of all ages, colors, and sizes, take 
up their march after destroying a field, and I have never seen or heard of their seizing 
on any other sort of vegetation to sustain theiT lives at this period. I have never 
made any experiments in trying to hatch out and feed and rear the worms in bottles, 
boxes, or close rooms, though others have done so here. I do not know what has been 
the result of these various experiments, never having witnessed or informed myself 
about them. Like the worms peculiar to the tobacco-plants, mulberry, cabbage, «S:c., 
the army worm seems to be peculiar to the cotton plant, and where it appears gener- 
ally and in numbers, they are found in every piece of cotton, no matter how largo or 
small, or what its peculiarities are as to location and surroundings.— [Douglas M. Ham- 
ilton, West Feliciana. 

After they have totally destroyed the cotton-plant, I have known them to feed upon 
other plants to sustain'life unlil they could form their web.— [Dr. I. U. Ball, Wesfc 
Feliciana. 

MISSISSIPPI. 

The worm feeds alone on cotton.— [George V. Webb, Amite. 
It feeds on the crab grass.— [William T. Lewis, Winston. 
Never.— [D. L. Phares, Wilkinson. 
No ; and 1 have noticed them closely.— [J. W. Burch, Jefferson. 

28 CI 



434 REPORT UPON COTTON INSECTS. 

Never knew the worm that destroys the coti,on-leaf to feed on anything else. — [John 
C. RiiHsell, MadiBou. 

I have never known them to. — [Daniel Cohen, Wilkinson. 

I have found the Aleiia webbing up in difierent weeds, grape leaves, blackberry and 
mulberry, and also eating the latter, owing no doubt to the held being stripped of 
leaves. — [E. H. Anderson, Madison. 

I have never seen them on any other plant or feed on any other. I have seen thou- 
sands of the moths ia thick grass and on pea vines; they seem to like the cover of pea 
vines in day, but have never seen the worms or eggs onthe pea-vines or on grass. — [C. 
F. Sheriod, Lowndes. 

They feed upon nothing but cotton. I have often seen them devouring each other, 
after the held was stripped of its leaves, among weeds, grass, and pea-vines. — [1. G. G. 
Garrett, Clarborne. 

NORTH CAROLINA. 

The worm feeds on the cotton-plant only. — [F. I. Smith, Halifax. 

SOUTH CAROLINA. 

Have never known it to do so. — [James W. Grace, Colleton. 

I have never known the cotton-worm to feed on anything but cotton. — [Paul S. Fel- 
der, Orangeburg. 
The worm never feeds on anything but cotton. — [James C. Brown, Barnwell. 

TENNESSEE. 

From the evidence of others, I cannot well deny that the worms do sometimes feed 
upon other plants for a short time ; though the fact, if a fact, is contrary to mj^ obser- 
vation. — [A. W. Hunt, M. D., Perry. 

TEXAS. 

I believe under certain conditions the moth would make its appearance very early, 
and finding only grass would deposit its eggs thereon, and that the worm, on hatching 
.out, would eat the leaves of the grass. — [P. S. Clarke, Waller. 

I do not th:nk the worm does or can feed uprn any other plant than cotton. I have 
•seen them start to travel after cleaning off the cotton, and pass over weeds, grass, 
and other shrubes, but never attempted to eat anything. They would pile up and die 
*by the million. Nothing but cotton would they eat. — [O. H. P. Garrett, Washington. 

They never do. — [S. P. Watts, Harden. 

Have been seen several years to eat grass — crop-grass, we call it here. Have seen 
fcheui one year e.at wormwood in geat quantity. They do it only when there is no more 
cotton to eat. — [R. Wii)precht, Comal. 

■In cases of cxiremc hunger they have been known to eat crop-grass, though slightlj', 
and sometimes they devour each other. — [.J. M. Glasco, Upshur. 

I have seen a few on the tomato after the cotton-plant had become too dry. I do 
not know that, they fed on it. — [Samuel Davis, Hunt. 

The worm does not feed on anything but cotton. — [W. T. Hill, Walker. 

They never feed upon any other plant. — [A. Underwood, Brazoria. 

It docs not. 1 have tested it to my satisfaction. Naturally it feeds upon the cotton- 
'plant, and cannot bo forced (by confinement) to feed upon anything else. I have fol- 
lowed and watched them after leaving a field that they had devoured. They were 
starved out, but eat nothing, and so perished. — [J. W. Jackson, Titus. 

Never known to feed on any plant but cotton. When the cotton hrs all been de- 
stroyed the large ones fall upon anything that they can find a leaf sufficient for them 
to double over, the younger ones i)erishing by starvation, or ants and hot sand, Slc. — 
[Natt Holman, Fayette. 

No. — [Stejihen Harbert, Colorado. 

WISCONSIN. 

Charles Jackson, four miles from Racine, raised large quantities of melons for market, 
mostly of the nutmeg variety. He complained to me that there was a miller that 
swarmed in his melon patch at night, and did much damage. I visited the locality at 
night, and discovered that it was the Aleiia argillacca, and that they did literally 
sivarm; and wherever there was a ripe melon tliat had a slight crack on its surface 
there the moth was sucking and crowding into the heart of the fruit, and in that way 
they did considerable damage. This was on September 10, 1877. Last September they 
were not so numerous, and did less damage. I noticed where the melons were per- 
i'ectly sound they did not work. — [P. R. Hoy, Racine. 



APPENDIX II ANSWERS TO CIRCULAR. 435 

Question 5. — State tlie time ^('hel> the first moths are noticed in your TocaJitij. 

ALAIJAJIA. 

Every warm spell thron/rh the winter they are seen coming, late in the afternoon, 
from fodder-stacks, eaves of sheds, and like places. — [J. H. Smith, J. F. Calhoun. 
Dallas. 

The moth is quite shy, and until they become pretty plentiful are rarely seen. The 
first worms that I have over known were reported as early as May 1.— [R. W. Rus- 
sell, Lowndes. 

Some years the moths are noticed aa early as the middle of July, but when they ap- 
pear so early they are very few.— [J. N. Gilmore, Sumter. 

In the mouth of May usually: occasionally the lirst of June. — [J. S. Hausbcrger, 
Bibb. 

Tliey have been seen in January. — [J. A. Callaway, Montgomery. 

Latter part of July and tirst of August.— [H. Tutwiler, Hale. 

Tbey are here to be found among-rotten wood, and under pieces of wood and bark, 
any time during the fall, winter, and spring. They commence gathering to the cot- 
ton-fields in the mouth of July; not many in June. — [J. C. Matthews, Dale. 

The moths are seen frequently on warm nights in January, February, and March. — 
[P. D. Bowles, Conecuh. 

Frequently in spring. — [J. W. Du Bose, Montgomery. 

About the first of July. — [George W. Thagard, Crenshaw. 

Last of May ; in our opinion these moths are from chrysalis that have wintered here 
under ground. — [Knox, Minge, and Evans, Halo. 

The moths make th(?ir appearance the latter part of June. — [A. D. Edwards, Macon. 

Moths have been noticed in this locality on warm evenings in January. — [D. Lee, 
Lowndes. 

Sometimes in May, but most generally in June. — [I. D. Driesbach, Baldwin. 

In May or June. — [C. M. Howard, Autauga. 

July generally; sometimes the latter part of June a few have been seen. — [J. R. 
Rogers, Bullock. 

It is thought by many in early spring, but as far as I know the moth taken for the 
cotton-worm may or may not be the genuine. — [C. C. Howard, Autauga. 

The moth is to be found in this locality during the entire season. In the winter it 
is concealed under the b.ark of dead trees, in old barns, or under the roofs of ohl build- 
ings. During warm spells in the winter they will come out from their covering, and 
may be seen liying about of nights around the lamps and frequently remain in the 
rooms of houses occupied. — [R. S. Williams, Montgomery. 

The moths can be found during the winter in places where suitable shelter can be 
found, such as the bark of trees, hay-stacks, barns, &c. Several days warm weather 
decoys them out, even in mid-winter. — [P. T. Graves, Lowndes. 

Sometimes seen in the winter months, if mild, protected by trash and rubbish, and 
in the spring, especially if a warm, cloudy day ; at uight, around lights, are seen the 
identical moths. — [John D. Johnston, Sumter. 

In I860.— [I.'F. Culver, Bullock. 

About 20rh June. — [.James M. Harrington, Monroe.. 

From the last of June to the middle of July ; sometimes even earlier than this. — [II. 
C. Brown, Wilcox. 

About the last of May. — [H. A. Stolenwerck, Perry. 

In 1874 I saw plenty of moths in January ; they were housed, however, nnder the hull 
of an old pine: the hull being torn from thti heart of the tree and leaving cracks, the 
moths had taken shelter. I put lire to the tree and (juite a swarm came out. 1 pre- 
sume all that were not burned perished from cold or were devoured by birds. The 
moths have been seen as early as May in the cotton-fields, but generally late in June 
or July; were seen the jiresent year In .July. — [H. Hawkins, Barbour. 

I have never noticed the moth, otherwise than they may be turned fron\ their abid- 
ing place during any mouth of winter or spring in plowing. — [A. Jay, Conecuh. 

Moths make their appearance in July in this locality. — [R. B. Dunlaj), Greene. 

Have never had any reliable evidence of moths migrating in an experience of thirty- 
five years. I have seen them in sufficient numbers to attract attention during warm 
days of February and March, and am satisfied they had come out from their winter 
quarters. * * * In this manner many of them perish, and no large number left to 
propagate in the earlj^ summer, and heuce no great destruction to the cotton that season. 
Greatest loss after cold, hard winter.— [J. D. Driesbach, Baldwin. 

The moths may be seen here any warm evening in winter. We have often seen them 
around the lamp in the coldest night of winter, warmed into action, doubtless, by 
the hot fire sin the chimneys, and come down from the attic of the dwelling, where 
wiisps and such insects hibernate. They are swarming out now. March 15, 1879. — 
[Dr. John Peuritoy, Montgomery. 



436 EEPOKT UPON COTTON INSECTS. 

ARKANSAS. 

July and later, — [Norborne Young, Columbia. 
June l.— [E. T. Dale, Miller. 

FLORIDA. 

Generally July ; sometimes last of June. — [John Bradford, Leon. 
In June. — [Jobu B. Carrin, Taylor. 
Last of June, or in July. — [J. M. McGeliee, Santa Rosa. 

I have seen the motb in February, but not in the cotton -fields. Have observed them 
in the fields the latter part of May. — [R. Gamble, Leon. 

GEORGIA. 

Early part of June. — [D. P. Luke, Berrien. 
June and July. — [A. J. Cheves, Macon. 

July and August ; mostly iu August ; they make their web in the cotton-leaves. — [E. 
M. Thompson, Jaclison. 

The first motbs seen here about July 10.— [M. Kemp, M.ariou. 

June 20 and 1st of .July. — [Timothy Fus^ell, Cofl'ee. 

About tbe middle of August. — [William Jones, Chirke. 

This year on or about the 2dth of August. — [S. P. Oilom, Dooly. 

Have seen them in dead of winter alive. — [William A. Harris, Worth. 

LOUISIANA. 

About the middle of July. — [H. B. Shaw, Concordia. 

The moths are noticed here generally in June and July for the first ; some persons 
say they see them earlier; some even contend that they are to be found in winter in 
tearing down hay or fodder stacks or ])ulling tbe bark from old trees. There are so 
many moths or small butterflies which look so like tbe moth which produces the army- 
worm, that our common ])eoi)le would never bo able to toll the diflfrenco. Whcu they 
become numerous, thi^y may be observed flying about the cotton })lants late in tbe eve- 
ning or into rooms where there is a light, and then any one knows them. — [Douglas 
M. Hamilton, West Feliciana. 

The first moths are nyticed in March, April, and May.— [Dr. I. U. Ball, West Feliciana. 

MISSISSIPPI. 

It would be a hard statement to make as to the time when the moth makes its first 
appearance. From the fact of there being so varied a tribe of moths, many people are 
misled, mistaking others for the real cotton-worm. I have known them here in .July. — 
[John C. Rnssell, Madison. 

I have seen the moth in this county iu every month of the year. — [J. Culbertson, 
Rankin. 

They usually appear from the 1st to the 15th of August ; sometimes earlier. — [Dr. 
E. H. Anderson. 

In May rarely ; Juno seldom; July generally. — [D. L. Phares, Wilkinson. 

AI)out May 10; some say by the 1st.— [J. W. Bnrch, Jefterson. 

Al)out the 20th of July, in limited numbers.— [C. F. Shcrriod, Lowndes. 

A few in June ; generally in .Jiily.— [R. Clarke, Chickasaw. 

Generally iu .June. — [C Welcli, Covington. 

From thelst to tlie 20th of Juuu.— [I. G. G. Garrett, Claiborne. 

Any time of warm days in Fel)ruary, but do not deposit eggs until the last of Jane 
or fii'st of July.— [W. Spillman, Clarke. 

Perfect insects, closely reseml)ling that of the cotton- worm, were captured in May; 
and the eggs obtained by dissection of tbe moth exactly corresponded with descrip- 
tion iuAgrcultural Report, 1873, of egg cotton caterpillar."— [G. W. Smith- Vaniz, Madi- 
son. 

About the l.^th or 20th of July.— [George V. Webb, Amite. 

NORTH CAROLINA. 

About the first of September.— [F. I. Smith, Halifax. 

From the 15th to the 30ch of August. — J. Evans, Cumberland. 

SOUTH CAROLINA. 

Sometimes as early as the middle of June; generally about the 1st of July. — [James 
W. Grace, Colleton. 

This year (1879) they were first noticed the 10th of August. Last year about the 
9,5th of August ; some years as early as the 15th of July.— [James C. Brown, Barn- 
well. 

TENNESSEE. 

August 10.— [A. W. Hunt, Perry. 



APPENDIX II — ANSWERS TO CIRCULAR. 437 

TEXAS. 

Once as early as the 20th of June, and again on the 26th of June.— [J. W. J:)ck.son, 
Titus. 

June. Plenty of them now, this the 25th day of June. — [Natt Holinan, Fayette. 

The first moth is geucrally seen in May. lu 18o7 the worm made its a[)pearauce in 
April, before the cotton was chopped. (Season extremely wet.) Nearly every year 
following ihey made their appearance from the 20th of May to the 10th of June. If 
the season should be dry it takes about three months from the time the first worm is seen 
till the cotton is destroyed ; but if a wet season, about two and a half months. I notify 
every one on my farm when to look for worms in the spring, and have obtained the 
above results. The worm when first appearing is green ; the second crop is green, 
neither doing any damage ; but the third has most black-back worms and soon de- 
stroys the crop. It is just three weeks between each successive brood of worms. 
After the brood becomes numerous enough to destroy the crops there is a continuous 
laying and hatching of eggs uutil everything is eaten up, then all the imperfect worms 
die. When the cotton is eaten up on the Brazos, laO miles south of me, before wo 
have worms to hurt us, we begin at once to get ready to poison, as the moths when 
hatched out cover the whole face of this county. They come in upon us, as it were, in 
a day and lay our cotton full of eggs. The eggs are a light blue or dark green when 
first laid, and approach to a gray color the nearer they approach hatching. The eggs 
are not laid in clusters, but each egg separate. The young worm feeds on the under 
side of the leaf. While young, and when old enough to pass to chrysalis, it will web 
on anything that is convenient, but generally on the cotton if there is loaf enougb, 
and always on the upper side of the leaf. The chrysalis does not pass the winter 
alive. Some farmers think the chrysalis enters the ground till spring, and then the 
fly comes out. They believe this from the fact that they plow up many chrysalides 
during the spring when breaking land. I have found the moth in midwinter housed 
in old rotten trees. I had numbers of them caught and know them to be the verita- 
ble cotton-fly. I have hatched out great numbers of them. They never fold their 
wings as do some moths, but present rather a trian(]uUir shape and always light with 
their head down or soon turn their head down if they light otherwise. — [W. T. Hill, 
Walker. 

The moths are scarcely ever seen uutil the first brood of worms have gone through 
the first two stages of their life. I have heard some farmers say they had seen thefly about 
the middle of June. Now, the time of first appearance of the worm varies each year. — 
[J. M. Glasco, Upshur. 

Very seldom as early as June. The larger number generally appears from July to 
September. — [A. Schroeter, Burnet. 

Erom the 10th of June to the 1st of July.— [S. B. Tackaberry, Polk. 

July 1 to 10. — [W. Barnes, Cherokee. 

Early in July.— [O. H. P. Garrett, Washington. 

About the Itith of June.— [P. S. Watts, Harden. 

July. — \R. Wipprecht, Comal. 

About July.— [P. S. Clarke, Waller. 

The latter part of May or first of June, but not in great numbers.— [J. H. Krancher, 
Austin. 

Some years late in June, but not often before the 1st of July, and sometimes not until 
late in August, which was the case this year, 1878.— [A. Underwood, Brazoria. 

They are noticed in the spring. — [S. Harbert, Colorado. 



Question 5 a.— Date icJien tlw first worms have been noticed in lyast years. 

ALABAMA. 

On uplands, 1873, July 1 ; on uplands, 1874, July 1.5; on swamp, 1874, July 1.5. On 
uplands. 1H75, none ; on swamp, 1S75, June 11 On uplands, 1876, August 14 ; on swamp, 
1876, July 12. On uplands, 1877, July 2G ; on swamp, 1877, May 31. On uplands, 1878,- 
August 27 ; on swamp, 1878, June —[J. H. Suiith and J. F. Calhoun, Dallas. 

The worm made its first appearance in this locality in 1874, the 31st day of July, but 
not in sufficient numbers to do any material injury to the cropat that time, but had 
destroyed it by the last day of August. I am not in possession of any reliable dates for 
other years since, but as a rule they have come later each year.— [J.N. Gilmore, Sumter. 

May 12.— [J. A. Callaway, Montgomery. 

During the summer of 1873 the first worms were noticed in July, about the first of 
that month.— [R. F. Henry, Pickens. 

Dates of appearance of caterpillar in my own crop may be given as follows, viz : 
Marengo Coimtv, Canebrake : 1869, August 15; 1870, late in September; 1871, late in 
August; 1872, June 16; 1873, July 16; 1874, July 8; 1875, late in July; 1876, about 



438 EEPORT UPON COTTON INSECTS. 

August 1. Montgomery County, Warriu : 1877, July 25 ; 1878, July 8.— [J. W. DuBose, 
Montgomery. 

In tho last of July and 1st of August.— [John D. Johnston, Sumter. 

In 1-40, September ; 1870, August; 1872 and 1873, July; 1878, August.— [I. F. Culver, 
Union 8prings, Bullock County. 

Early in May, 1808, 1 found several worms in different localities, that were growing. 
E5<oi)t that year, the earliest seen was the last day of June. — [P. T. Graves, Lowndes. 

Wii cauuot'give correct dates as to Ihe various years. They usually appear in tho 
month of August of the years in which they do most damage. — [J. S. Hausberger, Bibb. 

A few in June. — [H. A. Stolenwerck, Perry. 

From the 10th to the 13th of June. — [Knox, Minge, and Evans, Hale. 

About the 1st of July. — [James M. Harrington, Monroe. 

The latter part of Jane the worms haVo buen noticed. — [A. U. Edwards, Macon. 

Worms were seen in 1873 in May ; this year in August. — [H. Hawkins, Barbour. 

I have seen a well-developed caterpillar eating the cotton when I was putting it to 
a stand in May, hut the appearance then was no indication that they destroyed the 
crop any earlier than usual ; did not propagate to do any harm until tiie season of the 
year usual, from June on. — [A. Jay, Jay villa, Conecuh. 

Have seen worms in Julv. — [B. B. Dnnlap, Green. 

July 13.— [J. E. Rogers, i5ullock. 

Late in May or early in Jane. — [C. C. Howard, Autauga. 

1 cannot give the particular dates, but know that when they put in their appearance 
early that the crop will become destructive. In 1873 I saw them as early as the SOth 
of May. — [R S. Williams, Montgomery. 

In October, 1824; in September, 1825; the 20th of August, 1846. There have been 
80 many worm years since 18o5 I do not remember the dates of but a few. Of lato 
years the worms appear in small numbers about the 15th of July. — [D. Le^", Lowndes. 

Generally between the 1st and 10th of July. — [M. W. Hand, Forkland, Green. 

About the 20th of July. — [George W. Thagard, Crenshaw. 

Sometimes as early as May, but generally not before the 15th of July. — [I. D. Dries- 
bach, Baldwin. 

The 17th of May, 1874.— [P. D. Bowles, Conecuh. 

The 20th of July, when most fatal ; some years not till the 2d or 3J of August. — [J. 
C. Matthews, Dale. 

About the 15th of June. — [C. M. Howard, Autauga. 

Appeared in the picnic lands this year (1878) about the 28th of July. Can't say as 
to previous years.— [R. H. Powell, Bullock. 

From the 10th of August to last day of the month ; occasionally as early as the Ist 
of July.— [H. C. Brown, Wilcox. 

In 18G9, August 15; in 1872, June 16; in 1878, July 8. — [J. W. DuBose, Montgomery. 

Tho tirst appearance of the worms is difficult to ascertain, from the fact that they 
are so few at first, and scattered over so large an area of cotton-lields. Tho negroes, 
who mostly cultivate these fields, say that the first worms appear sooner than we im- 
agine (say some time in May). Our own observation is, that tho eggs of the moth are 
deposited when the cotton begins to bloom ; and this is later in some years than others. 
The average time is tho first week in June, on the earliest cotton-stalks. And it may 
bo that the moth is attracted to the cotton-fields by a double purpose: The first and 
most important, perhaps, is the propagation of her species ; the second, to suck tho 
cotton-blooms — for wo often see them in the bloom, "as busy as a bee." — [Dr. John 
Peurifoy, Montgomery. 

ARKANSAS. 

The first worm appears about two weeks after the first moth. — [Norborne Young, 
Columbia. 
The 10th of July.— [T. S. Edwards, Pope. 
June 21.— [E. T. Dale, Miller. 

FLORIDA. 

For the last twelve years we never pass June without some one finding the worms. 
Some years, as you know, they will eat out Ihe crop, and others, like the present, little 
or no damage will be done. — [John Bradford, Leon. 

About the 1st of July is the earliest they have ever been seen in this county. — [John 
B. Carrin, Taylor. 

Previous to the introduction of new improved seeds, they were observed about the 
middle of August. Referring to an old journal which I kept, I discovered a few August 
11, 1841. The winter of 1841 was cold and in 1842, there was no damage to the crop Uy 
caterpillar. The winter of 1842 was milder and drier, the first frost, November 10, 
killing the cotton, which was then green. July 15, 1843, I found a caterpillar; the 
crops of this year were destroyed. — [R. Gamble, Leim. 

First caterpillars reported in Leon County in 1869. May 12 ; 1872. June 29 ; 1873, 
May 24 ; 1874, July 2 ; 1875, June 24 ; 1877, June 19 ; 1878, juue iu.— [Robert Gamble, 
Leon. 



APPENDIX II ANSWERS TO CIRCULAR. 439 

GEORGIA. 

The worms first maVle their appearance in September, 1804, then not af^ain nntil 
late in Sei)teniberof 1*^25 ; tiien September^, 1840 ; September I'J, 184:5; August 18, 1846, 
An^nst 2(i increasing largely; September 14 fields almost stripped; by the 19tU the 
fields were completely stripped; August '20, 1847, August 18, 18,V2. These two years 
no harm done. I stopped planting in 1855 and have kept no notes since. — [William 
Jones, Clark. 

Middle of June. — [D. P. Luke, Berrien. 

In 184:5 they appeared about the 1st of September. — [S. P. Odom, Dooly. 

From August 10 to September 1. — [M. Kemp, Marion. 

Last of May on my place ; have heard of them in other localities sooner. — [William 
A. Harris, Worth. 

Never earlier than the latter part of June. — [A. J. Cheves, Macon. 

The iirst worms were discovered in last of August and first of September during the 
worm years. — [E. M. Thompson, Jackson. 

LOUISIANA. 

I have had my neighbors tell me that they found the genuine army worm on the 
young cotton-plants when working them the first time scraping and chopping out, 
but 1 cannot say that I have seen any so early myself. These persons were reliable, 
and I have governed myself in planting by what they reported to me. — [Douglas M. 
Hamilton, West Feliciana. 

In 1866, '67, and 73 1 have noticed them early in June.— [Dr. I. U. Ball, West Feli- 
ciana. 

The first worms are found about the last of July. — [John A. Maryman, East Feli- 
ciana. 

MISSISSIPPI. 

Generally in June or July. — [Daniel Cohen, Wilkinson. 

They are remarkably regular in their habits. — [C. F. Sherriod, Lowndes. 

About the first week in July. — [J. Culbertson, Rankin. 

I think there is a pretty good brood hatched out in May and early in June that 
would destroy the crop, but for the plowing that shakes them off the stalks and they 
are covered up by the earth. — [I. W. Burke, Jefferson. 

In July. — [Kenneth Clark, Chickasaw. 

The mouth of July worms have been found in past years. This year I have seen 
fields eaten clean in July. — [John C. Russell, Madison. 

This year the worms were found eating cotton as early as the 15th of July before 
any moths were observed. — [Dr. E. H. Anderson, Madison. 

May, June, Julv, August. — [D. L. Phares, Wilkinson. 

In 1866 and 1867 1 discovered the matured worms on the 13th of June ; the flies 
came out in eight days after the chrysalis was formed. My field was stripped of its 
leaves the first week in August ; made about half a crop. —[I. G. G. Garrett, Claiborne. 

First in 1846, 8th of July ; other years at various times up to the 15lh of August.— 
[George V. Webb, Amite. 

NORTH CAROLINA. 

Not sooner than September 8.— [F. I. Smith, Halifax. 

From the Ist to the 15th of September. — J. Evans, Cumberland. 

TENNESSEE. 

August 13.— [A. W. Hunt, M.D., Perry. 

SOUTH CAROLINA. 

From June 15 to July 1, though sometimes they have not been observed till Augnsfc 
1, yet have donegreat injury.— [James W. Grace, Colleton. 

The first worms are seen or noticed from three to five days after the moth. — [James 
C. Brown. Barnwell. 

TEXAS. 

The earliest that I have ever known the cotton-worm to appear was in 1867, about 
the 20th of July ; that year was remarkable for the late freeze in March and the year 
of abundance o'f rain, during the summer months. They did not, however, eat of the 
cotton-leaves until about the 1st of September; they appeared in small quantities, per- 
forated the leaves in places, made it look rather bad, but it continued to form and 
m:ike until entirely eaten oft", which it took the third generation to do ; the result was 
a fair crop was realized.— [0. H. P. Garrett, Washington. 

From the 10th of June to the 1st of July.— [S. B. Tackaberry, Polk. 

From July 1 to October 1.— [W. Barnes, Cherokee. 

A few in June.— [A. Schroeter, Barnes. 

June and July the fiy first makes its appearance.- [H. J. H. Brensing, Bowie. 



440 REPORT UPON COTTON INSECTS. 

I cannot give the exact date, but believe in 1866 they came about the Ist of August. ; 
1873 about July 15 ; 1875, a lew appeared in September; 1877 they came in numbers 
about August 20.— [J. M. Glasco, Upshur. 

About the 20th ot June, sometimes earlier.— [P. S. Watts, Hardin. 

Latter parr of July and August. — [P. S. Clarke, Waller. 

July. — [R. Wipprecht, Comal. 

In i866 they made their appearance in immense numbers on the 29th of August, 
making a clean svveep in about three or four days. Very destructive in 1872 on the 
15tli of August. In small numbers 1873, July 1. In 1875 appeared the 8th of May ; 
1876, 1st of June ; 1877, July 5 in considerable numbers. They generally reappear till 
first part of October and disappear entirely with the advent of cold nights and rains. 
— [J. H. Kraucher, Austin. 

In August. — [C. B. Richardson, Rusk. 

Latter part of June and July. — [Natt. Holman, Fayette. 

On the 13th of July and again on the 18oh of July. — [J. W. Jackson, Titus. 



Question 5 h. — Date wJwn the last worms hare been seen in past years, or were noticed the 

])resent year. 

ALABAMA. 

The worm the past year disappeared about the last days of September. If the worms 
are not suffi';iently numerous to destroy the crop before they mature, they all spin that 
are not destroyed. If it is not fully grown, it dies if the cotton gives out. — [J. N. Gil- 
more, Sumter. 

Worms are found until frost destroys the foliage, unless by their numbers the foliage 
is entirely consumed earlier. This has occurred several years. But few worms met 
the frost this year.- [P. T. Graves, Lowndes. 

I have seen tliein as late as October IG in 1877. There were few as late as October 1 
the past year, 1878.— [R. W. Russell, Loundes. 

September and liist part of October.— [I. F. Culver, Bullock. 

Usually in September; in 1878 in October.— [J. H. Smith, J. F. Calhoun, Dallas. 

They usually continue until the cotton-leaves are all consumed, unless frost should 
kill them. — [J. L. llausberger, Bibb. 

October and November. — [J. A. Callaway, Montgomery. 

About the 15th of September.— [H. C. Brown, Wilcox. 

In October in 1877. — [J. W. Du Bose, Montgomery. 

The worms remain generally till frost, about October 15 or November 1. — [A. D. Ed- 
wards, Macon. 

Have seen worms till frost. — [R. B. Dunlap, Greene. 

They seem to pass out of existence when the cotton- fields are swept over, in or about 
September. — [A. Jay, Conecuh. 

September. — [J. R. Rogers, Bullock. 

Last I saw this year were in October.— [C. C. Howar<l, Autauga. 

The last worms are generally seen until the cotton-leaf is entirely destroyed. I think 
when the nights become cool, as they do in October, that this stops the hatching of 
the eggs. — [K. S. Williams, Montgomery. 

Frost has often come before they had destroyed all of the cotton-plant foliage. They 
generally stay until they eat up all of the cotton foliage.— [John D. Johnston, Sumter. 

The last worms noticed this season were in October. — [R. F. Henry, Pickens. 

Sometimes until frost. The present year they are still at work, but not in this par- 
ticular locality, as they had eaten up the crop by the Ist of September. — [H. A. Stol- 
enwerck. Parry. 

About the loth day of October, all over the county.— [D. P. Bowles, Conecuh. 

The Ist of October. — [Knox, Minge, and Evans, Hale. 

Have seen them this year as late as the 15th of October.— [James M. Harrington, 
Monroe. 

September 15. — [George W. Thagard, Crenshaw. 

About the 15th of October, and often until frost if the cotton will furnish them 
food. — [I. D. Driesbach, Baldwin. 

The 28th of July, 1878.— [R. H. Powell, Bullock. 

About the last of October ; In 1844 they were caught by a frost, and those which 
were then at work were killed dead. — [D. Lee, Lowndes. 

They stay until frost if there is any cotton-leaf to feed on. Most of them die or go 
into the ground before frost. They do not travel from field to field, as some think. — 
[J. C. Matthews, Dale. 

On or about frost. — [C. M. Howard, Autauga. 

From the 1st to the 15th of October ; this year a little later.— [M. W. Hand, Greene. 

After the cotton ceases to grow and after a frost. — [H. Tutwiler, Hale. 

The worms last year (1878) appeared comparatively late, and they came to stay. 



APPENDIX II ANSWERS TO CIRCULAR. 441 

Having appeared first in the prairies, as usual, they spread to the sandy land on the 
Tallapoosa River and did cousiderahle damage, and disapi)eared in the cool weather 
in the first weeks of October. — [Dr. John Peurifoy, Montgomery. 

ARKANSAS. 

September 30 about the average, though sometimes as late as frost. — [E. T. Dale, 
Miller. 

In 1875 thf y remained until frost. — [T. S. Edwards, Pope. 
Until frost. — [Norbome Young, Columbia. 

FLORIDA. 

Have known them to come "in force" and eat out the crop the last of September. — 
[John Bradford, Leon. 

Very few are seen the last of August and first of September. — [J. M. McGehee, 
Santa Rosa. 

About the first of November. — [John B. Carrin, Taylor. 

Often remaining on the fields after frosts as caterpillars; are in the fields at this time, 
September 29. — [R. Gamble, Leon. 

GEORGIA. 

Past years the 25th of October. — [Timothy Fnssell, Coffee. 

October; have seen none the present year. — [M. Kemp, Marion. 

They disappear at the first frost, say, October 15. — [S. P. Odom, Dooly. 

At fbe appearance of frost. — [D. P. Luke, Berrian. 

In October, even after a slight frost— if late cotton young and succulent. — [William 
A. Harris, Worth. 

Their last .appearance is governed by the appearance ol heavy frost, which varies 
from last of October to Latter part of November. — [A. J. Cheves, Macon. 

In 18G9 and 1874 from the 20th to the 30th of September. — [E. M. Thompson, Jack- 
son. 

LOUISIANA. 

Sometimes the last worms are seen soon after they have eaten out the cotton-fields 
in August, September, or October, as the case may be. Again, they eat the cotton very 
slowly, and continue to eat it until cold weather comes to kill both worm and cotton. — 
[Donglas M. Hamilton, West Feliciana. 

I have seen them as late as the middle of October.— [Dr. I. U. Ball, West Feliciana. 

Worms are seen sometimes until frost. — [John A. Maryman, East Feliciana. 

MISSISSIPPI. 

The last crop of worms were just coming out (he 12th of October, when we had onr 
first slight frost. They began to disappear very soon, and I could find no chrysalides. 
They did not fold in the leaf as the preceding crop did.— [C. F. Sherriod, Lowndes. 

A few now (November 3) after ice and frost; plenty of chrysalides hanging to the 
skeleton of the dead leaves. J kill them every day as I walk through my fields.- [J. 
W. Burch, Jefl'ersou. 

They can be found as long as there are any green cotton-leaves ; that is, till frost. — 
[J. Culbertsou, Rankin. 

July, August, September, when food has been consumed or rendered unfit for their 
use ; otherwise October, November, and even as late as December.— [D. L. Phares, 
Wilkinson. 

Worms are here in October if there is any living foliage on the plant, and they .stay 
till it is cleaned out by them or frost, which is often late as November.- [ John C. Rus- 
sell, Madison. 

They are rarely observed here after October, unless the frost is late, when the last 
brood may be found in November.— [Dr. E. H. Anderson, Madison. 

The last worms seen this year was about September 10. Some years they are seen 
till October 15.— [C. Welch,' Covijgton. 

October. — [Kenneth Clarke, Chickasaw. 

They were in some fields this year after the first frost, on the 7th of October.— [I. G. 
G. Garrett, Claiborne. 

They were in my cotton-field this year until the latter part of October.— [W. bpill- 

mau, Clark. , ^ . ^v. i. 

In past years the last have been seen about the 20th of October, when frost was that 
late, usually at frost.— [George V. Webb, Amite. 

NORTH CAROLINA. 

About September 15.— [F. I. Smith, Halifax. 



442 REPORT UPON COTTON INSECTS. 

SOUTH CAROLINA. 

None have ever been seen after a severe frost. — [James W. Grace, Colleton. 
The last worms are seen at frost. There will be some spots green enough to sustain 
a few until the frosts end them. — [James C. Brown, Barnwell. 

TENNESSEE. 

Last worms were observed last year October 'Jl. Frost occurred soon after, which 
was the latest frost in my memory. — [A. W. Hunt, Perry. 

TEXAS. 

The last worms are seen when the cotton-fields are stripped and the worms starve to 
death, or they disappear after a heavy frost. — [.J. M, Glasco. Upshur. 

About the middle of September, generally ; this year as late as the 25th of Septem- 
ber.— [P. S. Watts, Harden. 

Worms now at work, Novembers, and will work till frost. — [W. Barnes, Cherokee. 

The worm continues to generate until frost. The cotton begins to leaf in a few weeks 
after the first destruction ; then the worm comes again, but not in much force — [O. H. 
P. Gajrett, W^asbington. 

Generally duriog the second and third weeks in September, but this year as late as 
the second week in October. — [S. B. Tackaberry, Polk. 

October. — [R. Wipprecht. Comal. 

In past years the end of October; the present year there are none. — [A. Schroeter, 
Burnett. 

They geuer.ally last as long as leaves and young bulbs last. — [C. B. Richardson, Rusk. 

Seen from July until November. — [Stephen llarbert, Colorado. 

In 1867 tUey remained (third brood) until the Uth of Octo'ier, it being alate, pleasant 
fall, and no frost until this date, which froze them out. — [J. W. Jackton, Titus. 

In October none seen yet, but reported south of me, or rather this county. — [Natt. 
Holman, Fayette. 



Question 5 c. — Number of broods or generations of the ivorms (jencraUij proOuced. 

ALABAMA. 

When the worm comes, say the middle of July, there is generally three broods pro- 
duced before they destroy the crop, but if they come late in the season the first brood 
generally destroys the entire cotton-leaf. — [J. N. Gilmore, Sumter. 

In 18 03 there were three distinct reproductions ; since then the generations have 
been blended ; that is, the insects were in every stage, until the fields were completely 
denuded. Tliis blending of generations is caused by the time occupied by the moth in 
depositing her eggs, from four to six days, the first hatching that much in advance. — 
[P. T. Graves, Lowndes. 

From three to four. — [I. F. Culver, Bullock. 

Three to four. — [J. S. llausberger, Bibb. 

Three. — [J. A. Callaway, Montgomery. 

Generally two or three ; in this latitude seldom more than two ; farther south three. — 
[H. Tutwiler, Hale. 

We think the third generation will eat out the field. — [Andrew Jay, Conecuh. 

Three, is the general opinion. — [J. R. Rogers, Bullock. 

Should say three. — [C. C. Howard, Autauga. 

Depends on the time of the appearance of the first crop. Usually they are in "dis- 
tinct crops, there being twenty-one days between each generation. The third crop 
generally becomes numerous enough to eat the leaves of the entire sections in a few 
days. The scattering or first crop are inrar'uihhi (jreen. The secondare mixed, sovae 
green without the l)lack stripes. The third are all striped, and at the least touch of the 
plant will spring as though shocked with electricity. — [R. S. Williams, Montgomery. 

Those who have paid the greatest attention to them state that it requires three crops 
to destroy the crop of cotton ; but 1 have seen them from July 20, continuously until 
the crop was destroyed, say about August 25. — [R. W. Russell, Lowndes. 

About three, sometimes four. — [John D. Johnston, Sumter. 

Three and four. — [J. H. Smith, J. F. Calhoun, Dallas. 

By common consent, three. — [R. H. Powell, Bullock. 

First general brood about the 10th of August ; second brood first of September; third 
and most destructive brood (the appalling and "sweep all" brood) from the 20th to 
the 25th of September. New broods come about every twenty days. — [I. D. Driesbach, 
Baldwin. 

There are two cro ps of the worms. — [A. D. Edwards, Macon. 

Some farmers belie ve a fly, resembling a small butterfly, lays eggs upon the cotton- 



APPENDIX II — ANSWERS TO CIRCULAR. 443 

leaf: the eggs are hatched by the heat of the sun. and make worms; these worms web 
iuthecottou-leaves.ind make a secoud lly, and so ou the to third fly, ami this third brood 
destroys the cotton crop. My own opiiiiou differs. I think the eggs that are seen ou 
the under bido of the leaf malie lice. — [George W. Thagard, Crensbaw. 

Three broods, I think, are always produced during the season before the crop is ma- 
terially damaged. — [H. Hawkins, Barbour. 

Two broods of worms in a .season. — [K. B. Dunlap, Greene. 

The prevailmg opinion has been that there were three broods, though for the past 
two years that opinion has been changed, under the impression that there are enough 
of them preserved from the preceding year to destroy the crop whenever the weather 
is propitious. — [H. A. Stolenwerck, Perry. 

I have never seen but three distinct broods. If they come early they disappear 
early. — [J. W. Du Bose, Montgomery. 

Three broods: first, large green; second, light striped; third, black and de- 
vmirers. — [James M. Haningiou, Monroe. 

About three broods. — [H. 0. Brown, Wilcox. 

Always three.— [P. D. Bowles, Conecuh. 

Three generations : the tirst very few ; second, numerous; third, multiplied millions, 
and will eat the tield out in three days, whether one acre or 1,000 acres; the growth 
of the worm is rapid, as he will be full grown in three days.— [J. C. Matthews, Dale. 

Three.— [C. M. Howard, Autauga. 

Three. — [Knox, Miuge, and Evans, Hale. 

About three. — D. Lee, Lowndes. 

Generally two, sometimes as many as three. — [M. W. Hand, Greene. 

ARKANSAS. 

About three ; it generally takes the third to ruin the crop.— [Norborne Young, Co- 
lumbia. 

Generally three.— [E. T. Dale, Miller. 

FLORIDA. 

In former years, when they appeared, we expected three broods; the third was the 
one to eat out the crop. Later years they do not seem to follow ;-«7e.s. Sometiines will 
appear in small force and continue to increase and eat for several weeks until all is 
eaten out. Again, they will sweep everything in three or four days.- [ J. Bradford, 
Leon. 

Three.— [John B. Carrin, Taylor. t nr i^r n i 

I am not certain of more than two, though there may be more.— [J. M. McGehee, 

Santa Rosa. • i. i t 

The third brood is generally supposed to sweep the field, but there is at leas , one 
brood preceding these, not noticed in consequence of paucity of number.- [R. Gamble, 
Leon. 

GEORGIA. 

In the writer's opinion, the moths hibernate in decaying, sappy parts of woods, thick 
grass, and other places where materials are soft, spongy, or good non-conduccors ot 
heat with crevices that enable them to hide from wind and cold; that as soon as the 
weather is warm enough they emerge in the spring, but are so few in number that 
they are not observable until they have passed through perhaps half a dozen genera- 
tions ; then the third broods are generally sufficient to eat up all the tender leaves.— 
[A. J. Cheves, Macon. 

About two.— [D. P. Luke, Berrien. 

Generally two ; sometimes three.— [William Jones, Clarke. , ., ,. a 

Three broods ; the iirst does not do much damage ; it is the second brood that does.— 
[T. Fussell. Coffee. ^, ... , „ 

This depends upon the time the moths make their appearance, as they will produce 
a new crop «?very four weeks, if the weather is favorable.— [M. Kemp, Marion. 

As many as three.— [William A. Harris, Worth. 

LOUISIANA. 

Three.— [H. B. Shaw, Concordia. . r . ■■, j. i* t 

I cannot answer this question accurately or even satisfactorily, to you or myselt. i 

believe there are no regular number, but these are governed by the time when they 

firs^ appear and the rapiditv with which they increase and destroy the cotton crop; 

with this last event the last crop perishes.-[ Douglas M. Hamilton, West 1-eliciana 

There are generally three broods, or generations, of the worms produced.— [Dr. 1. U. 

Ball, West Feliciana. , j i r t k« a \T..,.„r„nn 

There are about three generations in one season produced.— [John A. Alaryman, 

East Feliciana. 

MISSISSIPPI. 

I think about three. The first is very small in number and does so- little damage 
that few people discover it. The year 1669 was remarkable tor the (apparent at lease) 



414 REPORT UPON COTTON INSECTS. 

number of generations ; the first being surv^ivors of the preceding year, or immi" 
grants ; second, caterpillars matured in my caG;e, imago, July 6 ; third matured August 
2 ; fourth, September 1 ; tifth, October 1 to 15 ; and, lastly, the progeny of these last, 
none of which, so far as I could discover, passed beyond the pupa stage. Even some 
of the fifth generation, after completing the last transformation, were so weakened 
from cold, drought, or other causes that they could not burst the pupa cases, in which 
I found the moth dead and dry.-^[D. L. Phares, Wilkenson. 

Three broods of worms produced, and that has been generally enough to clean the 
cotton-crop of cverthing that a cotton-worm could live on. — [John C. Russell, Madison. 

I think they kept up a continual stream of generation. — [Daniel Cohen, Wilkinson. 

About three. — [C. F. Sherriod, Lowndes. 

Usually two or three, sometimes four and five. — [Dr. E. H. Anderson, Madison. 

Three or four. — [Kenneth Clark, Chickasaw. 

Three, I think. — [J. W. Bnrch, Jefferson. 

Three.— [C. Welch, Covington. 

From three to five. I have noticed four or five broods when they failed to strip the 
field of its leaves ; the birds, the ichneumon, and other insects, held them in check. — 
[I. G. G. Garrett, Claiborne. 

Three, and if a late autumn, or frost, four.— [W. Spillman, Clark. 

Three.— [George V. Webb, Amite. 

NORTH CAROLINA. 

Only one. — [F. I. Smith, Halifax. 

SOUTH CAROLINA. 

Tliree when destructive. — [James W. Grace, Colleton. 

From three to five, according to favorable circumstances or time of first appear- 
ance. — [James C. Brown, Barnwell. 

TENNESSEK. 

Five or six are the generations sometimes produced ; my own observations would say 
generally not more than two, barely three. — [A. W. Hunt, M.D., Perry. 

TEXAS. 

There are about three broods, depending mostly on the time of their appearance. I 
will, as far as my knowledge goes, give the course they take. First, a few ragged 
leaves on the cotton indicates the presence of the worm. On examination a few 
patches of worms may be found ; the first generally are as green as the cotton-leaf. 
In about ten or twelve days they wind up in leaves and remain about four days, when 
a dusky brown moth is hatdhed. She soon commences to deposit her eggs, which 
are said to hatch in three or four days. This now brood takes their course and i>re- 
pares for the next brood, which cleans up everything. — [J. M. Glasco, Upshur. 

Three ; under circumstances favorable to them, four. — [A. Schroeter, Burnet. 

It is difiicult to say how many broods there are, but the fourth finds but little to 
feed on, and so dies. — [P. S. Clarke, Waller. 

Two broods each year. — [R. Wipprecht, Comal. 

Generally three ; this year four. — S. B. Tackaberry, Polk. 

Generally two, occasionally three. — [W. Barnes, Cherokee. 

From two to four broods, thoa;;h but one brood is to be feared; that is the second. — 
[O. H. P. Garrett, Washington. 

Three and four.— [P. S. Watts, Hardin. 

Three broods. — [H. J. H. Brensing, Miller. 

Generally three broods. — [J. H. Krancher, Austin. 

Two, and sometimes three. — [C. B. Richardson, Rusk. 

In their early history the crop was never eaten up until the third generation ap- 
peared, about three weeks being the time, or six weeks elapsing from the appearance 
of the first to the third appearance. This, however, has changed, and from their first 
appearance they go on increasing until the whole vast foliage is alive with them and 
eaten up, and all fields of hundreds of acres look as though a tire had run over them, 
and the worm then falls ofi", covering the ground, sometimes one or two inches deep. 
They attempt to crawl ofi", but soon die, producing a most disagreeable odor. — [A. Un- 
derwood, Brazoria. 

Three broods a season. — [Stephen Harbert, Colorado. 

Three distinctive crops or broods of them, being six weeks from the time you see 
the first crop of them until they are in force enough to eat up the cotton. — [Natt 
Holman, Fayette. 

In favoral)le seasons we have sometimes as many as three, but often two are sufii- 
cient to destroy the crop, and leave the third set of moths nothing to deposit their 
eggs upon, aud evening and morning the air is darkened with their rising to take 
their flight. — [J. W. Jackson, Titus. 



APPENDIX II ANSWERS TO CIRCULAR. 445 

Question 5d. — In ivhat oilier sUiiations hesides the folded ^cotton-leaves Mve you known the 

ivorms to sjnn ? 

ALABAMA. 

In more ways than I can enuraerate, perhaps. On anything they can get to wlien 
ready to web np. A weed or corn-stalk will answer very well. — [R.W. Russell, Lowndes. 

In the leaves of bushes and weeds; in fact, they web up in almost any green shrub 
or weed that is in their way. — [J. L. Hausberger, Bibb. 

We have known them to spin in the leaves of peach, apple, oak, and hickory trees, 
and also in leaves of weeds and blades of grass. — [J. A. Callaway, Montgomery. 

Weeds, grass, and brush. — [H. Tutwiler, Hale. 

When the cotton-leaves are exhausted they will web themselves up in the leaves of 
the hog-weed, or any other weed of proper size which grows on the hedge-rows con- 
venient. — [Dr. John Peurifoy, Montgomery. 

(The worms have eaten most of the leaves and young buds of the plants in my field 
and are on the move. They may be seen moving through the grass, potato-vines, 
&c., and upon the trunks of pine trees, seldom, however, higher than live or six feet 
from the ground, as they jump off or fall back after climbing a short time. I do not 
see that they have begun to eat anything else than the cotton.) Most of the worms 
of the past week or ten days have.webbed up in the cotton-leaves, and the chrysalides 
hang many from the denuded leaf-skeletous. They are scarcely covered at all, the leaf- 
blades in which they were wrap^ied having been eaten away, and they hang almost free 
in air. The present brood of worms I fiud webbing up in the leaves of various plants: 
the following I have noticed: sweet-potato, Casfiia obtusifolia and OcrAdentalis, Phi/mlis 
lanccolata, Solaiiavi CnroJhiciise, sassafras, Pliarbilis nil, Ipuincca tamniJ'oUa, Shla spiriosa, 
Ambrosia artemisimfolia, Xantliana stromarium, Euphorbia maculata, Amarantus spinosus, 
Qiierciis aqiiatica (small trees), sweet gum (small), watermelon, Pass'iflora incarnata, and 
young mulberries; the latter seems a favorite. Nearly all the leaves of half a dozen 
young mulberry plants are rolled np by the worms. A few worms of the present brood 
I have found webbed up in the cracks of the bark of old field-pines standing in the 
field. Most that I have seen have been on east, north, and west sides. Have seen none 
on south sides of the trees. The greater part of the present brood, however, are web- 
bing up in any leaves that they encounter, grass leaves excepted. The webs made by 
the present brood of worms are simply the leaf rolled once and bound together by the 
silk. In the cas<^ of those worms webbing in the crevices of pine-bark, a thin gauzo 
of the silk was all that protected them ; through this web the worm can easily be seen. 
Thus far I see no tendency on the part of the worms to make a denser cocoon than 
those of the preceding brood. I have noticed tho moths occasionally fly up from a mass 
of swee -i)otato vines among which Cassia obtusifolia unA .C . occidentalis were growing. 
Perhaps the glands on the leaf-stalks of those two species may have offered some at- 
traction, thongh I have not seen any moth upon the plants. — [E. A. Smith, Tuscaloosa. 

When numerous enough to destroy the crop they will spin in any leaf when there 
are no cotton-leaves left. — [H. A. Stolenwerck, Perry. 

They will spin upon anything. — [James M. Harrington, Monroe. 

I have seen them webbed up in the leaves of the mulberry and cocklebur. — [R. H. 
Powell, Bullock. 

They will web up in the green leaves of weeds or bushes when most convenient, but 
I have never known them to spin on anything dry, except the open cotton- boll. — [D. 
Lee, Lowndes. 

They are not confined to a folded leaf, but the eggs may be found upon open leaves. — 
[J. C. Matthews, Dale. 

On almost any kind of weed or bush that happens to be near the field. — [M. W. 
Hand, Greene. 

On the old cotton-stalks, limbs of trees (on the ground), bark, stumps, and old logs, 
all on the ground — [P. D. Bowles, Conecuh. 

I have never seen the worm spin except in cotton-leaves. — [J. W. Du Bose, Mont 
gomery. 

They have been known to web upon any object, on oak leaves, in stumps, or on com- 
mon weeds, «&c. — [A. D. Edwards, Macon. 

The worm must fiud homething in which to web up or perish ; it will use anything 
green or soft enough in which to fold itself uj), called spinning. — [H. Hawkins, Bar- 
bour. 

As soon as the third crop is grown, or by the time all the cotton-leaves are consumed 
and the worms crawl ofi" onto any green weed and spin. I have seen ihe weeds cov- 
ered with the worn)s and not a leaf eaten, but all used by the worm in which to fold 
himself. — [H. Hawkins, Barbonr. 

In various kinds ; the red-oak leaf, potato-vine leaf, cocklebur leaf. As before said, 
I don't think such amouuts to anything, but I am not positive about it ; at least there 
is no late growth of cotton eaten ; hence I conclude the chrysalis found on these leaves 
don't produce the fly. The caterpillar fly is seen all a oug in the latter mouths. lu 
making molasses now (November 26, 1878), they get into your juice. — [A. Jay, Conecuh. 



446 REPOKT UPON COTTON INSECTS. 

Have never seen a cotton- worm in any otlier place than the cotton-field. — [R. B. Dun- 
lap, Greene. 

Oq smart-weed, pea-vines, and almost every kind of vegetation. — [J. E. Rogers, Bul- 
lock. 

In the leaves of weeds.— [C. C. Howard, Autauga. 

The worms in force consume all the leaves, even those already nsed as wrappers 
by other worms, are then forced to web on grass, weeds, bushes, or cloth if placed 
near the field. The distance traveled in quest of a webbing-place will not exceed 30 
yards. — [P. T. Graves, Lowndes. 

The worm spins on the leaf of any plant that may chance to be convenient. — [J. N. 
Gilmore, Sumter. 

After the leaf is exhausted they will web in the weeds and bushes round the field.— 
[R. S. Williams, Montgomery. 

None other. — [John D. Johnston, Sumter. 

Have never known them spin in any other situation than the leaf of the cotton- 
plant. — [R. F. Henry, Pickens. 

After the leaf is exhausted they will web in the weeds and bushes near the field. — 
[R. S. Williams, Montgomery. 

On the forest leaves and weeds, and any other place they could get, after having 
passed through the cotton-field and eaten all the 'cotton-leaves up. — [I. F. Culver, 
Bullock. 

Leaves of various weeds. — [J. H. Smith, J. F. Calhoun, Dallas. 

When the cotton-leaf has been swept otf and the brood is ready to "go to its fath- 
ers" or into the chrysalis state, they will uraj) themselves up in the leaf of the " cockle- 
bur," or any other leaf that is large enough to envelop them. They spin not, neither 
do they toil, but eat, eat, eat, until they empty our pockets. Banquo's ghost was not 
more appalling than the first caterpillar is to the planter. — [I. D. Dreisbach, Bahlwin. 

They fold up in anything that will bend sulhcient for the business. I have often 
found them ou paper or old cloth or any substance they can find ; this is when they 
are very numerous, having eaten all the cotton-leaves and leaving nothing ou the cot- 
ton-stalk to aflbrd shelter.— [H. C. Brown, Wilcox. 

After the leaves of the cottou are devoured the worm will spin itself np npon green 
vegetation of almost any kind. They are often seen in the fence-corners webbing up 
to protect themselves from the sun. I have seen them in the cracks of the fencing 
and upon dead timber securely webbed. — [C. M. Howard, Autauga. 

Various weeds. — [Knox, Minge, and Evans, Hale. 

ARKANSAS. 

Have seen them spin from bushes, weeds, and ends of cotton-stalks, though not very 
often.— [E. T. Dale, Miller. 

I have seen the web on difl'erent kinds of weeds.— [T. S. Edwards, Pope. 

Can't say that I have known them to spin on anything else.— [Norborne Young, 
Columbia. 

FLORIDA. 

I have never known the boll- worm to spin on the cotton leaf. I am sure they go into 
the ground. I have dug them out of the ground in October and always close to the 
stalk, rarely even four or five inches from it. — [J. M. McGehee, Santa Rosa. 

In any weeds or grass that may be near, particularly the rag-weed, which is tender, 
pliant, and easily folded. — [John Bradford, Leon. 

The worm when it leaves the fields, as it sometimes does as early as September, 
always webs itself in any green leaf which presents itself in the shrubbery along the 
fence rows or in the weeds or even the grasses there growing, and the miller emerg- 
ing from the chrysalis goes oft" into the forest, leaving the cotton-fields which are 
sometimes only partly stripped, and not returniug to them, though they often become 
green again with new leaves. — [R. Gamble, Leon. 

GEORGIA. 

No other leaves. — [D. P. Luke, Berrien. 

None — [A. J. Cheves, Macon. 

On bark, fence-rails, in fact on grass.— [W. A. Harris, Worth. 

They invariably web in the cotton ; generally in the top leaves.— [S. P. Odom, 
Dooly. 

The worm will spin ou the small limbs of cotton, on bushes and palmetto fans. 
Sometimes they get in the wood and in the jambs of the fences. I have seen thirty 
or forty hanging by the end of one palmetto leaf or fan as it is called. — [Timothy 
Fussell, Coftee. 

The worms will spin on any kind of soft leaves in the field, as gum, brier, &c.—[ Wil- 
liam Jones, Clarke. 



APPENDIX II ANSWERS TO CIRCULAR. 447 

The usual mode is to spin in the top of the cotton from limb to limb, and make a 
perfect network like the spider. — [M. Kemp, Marion. 

I have noticed the worms weave their webs in peach and apple trees and other 
trees. — [E. M. Thompson, Jackson. 

LOUISIANA. 

In almost any kind of a leaf large enough to hold them, that is after the cottonleaves- 
are destroyed. This year I have noticed four or live worms wrapped np in one pear- 
sprout leaf. — [H. B. Shaw, Concordia. 

While there is any cotton left to snbaist on, the worm eats it until fully grown ; then 
doubles itself up in a cotton-leaf and turns to a black pointed affair, which we call a 
cocoon or chrysalis. From this emerges in duo time a moth, or lly, which proceeds to 
lay eggs on the cotton-leaves which hatch in due time into cotton-worms who go the 
same round. But the cotton-plant is their sole food and place of breeding as long as 
any of it exists. The last crop spin their cocoons, or web up, after they have exhausted 
all the cotton, upon any weeds or bushes they come to. They emerge from these as 
moths, as before, and may bo started up from weeds and bushes by thousands, but they 
breed and increase no more during that season, so far as I am informed. — [Douglas 
M. Hamilton, West Feliciana. 

The cotton- worm will roll up in anything that is green. — [John A. Maryman, East 
Feliciana. 

I have known it to spin on the blades of sugar-cane, on the leaves of cockleburand 
other weeds. — [Dr. I. U. Ball, West Feliciana. 

MISSISSIPPI. 

I have often found the chrysalides enfolded in the meshes of open cotton -bolls, and 
this is common with the last brood which finds no leaves to web np in. — [J. Culbertson, 
Rankin. 

In the leaves of the cocklebur and Jamestown weed. — [J. W. Burch, Jefferson. 

On sundry weeds. Sometimes vast numbers of chrysalides are seen on a single weed ; 
as many as twenty, thirty, and even -more have been counted on a twig less than 
two feet long. Tliis occurs only when the cotton-leaves have been destroyed and the 
caterpillars have wandered in search of suitable leaves, till, I suppose, finding them- 
selves about to change to chrysalides or forced to spin, they fasten on any convenient 
place or anything from which they may hang above the ground. — [D. L. Phares, Wil- 
kinson. 

They will spin on almost any kind of plant besides cotton and sometimes hang by a 
single thread on cotton already stripped. — [Daniel Cohen, Wilkinson. 

r have seen this year the worm spun up iu the hogwced, grass growing on the ditches 
running through the cotton-fields. It was their only chance, though, to spin iu that or 
die. — [John C. Russell, Madison. 

TL- e first brood folds the leaf invariably so long as there are leaves. When the plant 
is bare, attaches its chrysalis to the naked fibers of the leaf and sometimes to the 
twigs of the plant. — [Dr. E. H. Auderstm, Madison. 

On the leaves of grass, weeds, and almost every kind of bush in reach, unless it is 
the long-leaved pine. — [C. Welch, Covington. 

No other. — [Kenneth Clarke, Chickasaw. 

In the leaves of any weeds or bushes I have found the crysalides under boards and 
fence- rails. — [I. G. G. Garrett, Claiborne. 

Only on young sassafras and persimmons when growing in fields of young cotton, 
and probably oulv then when blown or shaken of!" the cotton.— [W. Spillman, Clarke. 

In every kind of leaf they could find, aud often in gra?s blades.— [George V. Webb, 
Amite. 

NORTH CAROLINA. 

No other. — [F. I. Smith, Halifax. 

SOUTH CAROLINA. 

I have never known them to spin in any other place except when the fields have 
been eaten out, and then have seen a few wound up iu oak-leaves by the side of the 
fields.— [James W. Grace, Colleton. 

If the cotton-leaves are all eaten and there be a leaf near of any weed, they will 
get on that and fold it over ; otherwise they seem to be lost, and perish without going 
into chrysalis. — [James C. Brown, Barnwell. 

TENNESSEE. 

I have never known cotton-worms to spin in other situations than the cotton-leaves 
My attention has frequently been called to other situations in which it was said they 
had spun. The few of such cases which have been examined by me proved the spin- 
ner to belong to another family.— [A. W. Hunt, M. D., Perry. 



448 REPORT UPON COTTON INSECTS. 



They web upon auy leaf tbey can find ; have found them on leaves of potatoes (sweet), 
peas (field), cockle, on what is known as the hog- weed; have found them in locks of 
cotton on the stalk; have found them in the cotton-seed in the gin-house. After all 
leo.ves are gone one can see theui hanging by slender threads, but strong, to the limbs 
of cotton-stalks. — [P. S. Clarke, Waller. 

They will fold almost any kind of leaf, as we call it, to web up in. A large number 
of them perish while in a webbed state and a large number come forth a fuU-tiedged 
butterfly. They do not spin any other way but in a folded leaf.— [O. K. P. Garrett, 
Washington. 

I have known them webbed in various other plants ; they do not confine themselvea 
to cotton alone to web in. — [P. S. Watts, Hardin. 

When the leaves are consumed they spin a slight cocoon and suspend from the stem 
of a leaf or branch of the cotton. — [J. M. Glasco, Upshur. 

In any kind of leaf they can find after the cotton-leaf is destroyed. — [S. B. Tacka- 
berry, Polk. 

In no other. — [H. J. H. Brensing, Bowie. 

I never saw them anywhere else.— [W. Barnes, Cherokee. 

None. — [R. Wipprecht, Comal. 

They spin on all plants adjacent to the cotton field, on the weeds or grass at the edge 
of the field or between the rows. — [J. H. Krancher, Austin. 

Never on anything but the cotton leaf or stalk. — [C. B. Richardson, Rnsk. 

I have seen them on the careless and other weeds ; in fact, they will web on most 
anything after they have eaten up the cotton. — [S. Ilarbert, Colorado. 

On the naked cotton-limb, weeds, and grass after the leaves were devoured. — [J. W. 
Jackson, Titus. 

No other. — [Natt. Holman, Fayette. 

Most unquestionably, aud beyontl all reasonable doubt, they burrow in the ground 
at or near the precise spot where they lower themselves after leaving their h'afy cov- 
ering by a delicate web from the cotton-bush to the earth, because they are there 
traced and unearthed. — [William J. Jones, Galv*eston. 

After the process of wrapping themselves in their own meshes is complete they free 
themselves from their leafy covering, ishowing a perfectcocoon, and suspend themselves, 
in their eti'ort to reach tbe ground, by a tiny thread. When they reach the earth, they 
work or bore themselves below its surlace with wonderful rapidity far enough to 
evade all ordinary casualties and to be thoroughly hid from view. There they remain 
till some are disturbed by the plow, while the remainder are content to hibernate till 
their natural instinct prompts them to take wing and seek for their special, if not 
only food, the cotton-leaf. The fact that they appear at one time late and another 
season early, or are more numerous at one period or place than another, or in some 
seasons not coming forth at all, may be due to local causes yet remaining to be dis- 
covered. The best word the most enlightened planter can yet say of this litfulness of 
instinct is that it is a profound mystery in nature. If the growth of the cotton-plant 
were such as to allow us to fallow our lands in the fall, we might destroy a vast num- 
ber of these cocoons. This occasionally happens where a crop has met with an early 
disaster, as in my own crop here the last year, a field of oOO acres of cotton being 
destroyed by a cyclone on the 15th of September, aud consequently perhaps very few 
worms appearing this year very late in the season and doing no sensible damage. We 
have had no frost as yet (November 23); the cotton is nearly in full foliage, many 
blooms and some few young bolls from the second growth showing themselves, but no 
appearance of the worm. It was this second growth of cotton upon which the moth 
tarried this season. — [William J. Jones, Virginia Point. 



Question oe. — Save you ever known the chri/salis to survive a frost or to be found in 
sound and healthy condition in winter? 

ALABAMA. 

I never have known the cbrysalis to live through winter. I do not believe the worm 
lives more than ten days in the chrysalis state. I examined quite a number of them 
last September, when they had spun on weeds after the cotton had been eaten, and 
never was able to find anything in the web after ten days; they had all matured and 
come out. — [I. N. Gilraore, Sumter. 

I have not. Many farmers think difi"erently. The chrysalis of the cut- worm is mis- 
taken for the cotton-worm. My observation has been that a chrysalis placed on the 
ground invariably perishes, by sunshine or moisture, provided ants leave it long 
enough to succumb to those influences. — [P. T. Graves, Lowndes. 



APPENDIX ANSWERS TO CIRCULAR. 449 

Have plowed up intbe sprinj? what anpears, to unskilled observers, to ho identical 
with the ehrysalis of the cotton-worm.— [J. H. Smith, J. F. Calhoun, Dallas. 

I never have, though I am of the opinion tluil. thev do hide away somewhere, and 
that they survive mild winters.— [I. F. Culver, Bullock. 

No.— [John D. Johnston, Sumter 

Have not.- [J. L. Hausber<j;er, Bibb. 

Never.— [J. A. Callaway, Montjjomery. 

I now (November 29) se'nd a smidl box of chrysalides, which may be of advantage in 
determining the manner and habits of spinning after all the leaves of the cotton-i)laut 
have been eaten up and nothing left except weeds or prass on the edges of the held or 
on ditches. The chrysalis has been known to live all winter, and also in the moth 
state. I have known the chrysalis to survive a frost ; I have, in a few instances, seen 
the chrysalis turned up with the furrow when preparing land in early si)ring, which 
had certainly been thus preserved under or in the ground all winter. Col. Eli S. 
Shorter, ()f Eufaula, whose lautl joins mine, imprisoned a chrysalis thus found, by 
placing it in a glass jar, and it came out a, caterpillar moth. I have seen many of the 
moths in mild weather in the winters of 187:} and lri74, and I am conlident that both 
the moth and the chrysalis survive the winter, the winter being mild. — [H. Hawk- 
ins, Barbour. 

Never. I have no idea that they exist in a chrysalis state in winter; but, as before 
said, in the lly state.— [Andrew Jay, Conecuh. 

Have never known a chrysalis to survive the winter. — [R. B. Dunlap, Greene. 

I have never not iced them but a very short time after webbing up ; generally in abont 
three weeks they hatch, and I never knew what became of tntm ; there are so many 
insects that resemble the moth that it is hard to distinguish them. — [II. C. Brown, 
Wilcox. 

I think most of them are destroyed by frost, but I do not think they all are. When 
they have protection I'roni cold, they survive the winter here. — [ J. C. Matthews, Dale. 

Never. The moth comes out at the usual lime or the chrysulis dies. I do not know 
the number of days — I believe not exceeding ten — till the moth emerges from its thiu 
fih( 11. — [D. Lee, Lowndes. 

I have not known the chrysalis to survive the frost or be found iu a sound and healthy 
condition iu winter, though. others believe otherwi.se. — [A. D. Edwards, Macon. 

In this locality the moth comes forth before cold weather, and I do not remember to 
have seen a chrysalis alive after a freeze. — [M. W. Hand, Greene. 

Yes. This,la.->t winter, in preparing the land for planting, we plowed them up, and 
to all ajipearances they were as lively and vigorous as when tirst webbed up on the 
stalk. Have put them in open-mouthed bottles in a warm room and they would come 
out a moth iu a few days.— [II. A. Stolenwerck, Perry. 

Have not, though I have never noticed particularly. — [R. H. Powell, Bullock. 

I think not; they become torpid under the inliuence of cold and rarely survive a 
killing frost. — [C. M. Howard, Autauga. 

Never have. — [James M. Harrington, Monroe. 

Never have. — [I. D. Driesbach, Baldwin. 

Dr. N. A. Lee says that he has often seen them during the cold weather in January 
and February when he had plowing done in the held where cotton had been planted 
the year previous, and this after frost, and they iu a healthy condition. — [P. D. Bowles, 
Conecuh. 

Yes, all times of winter vmder the ground. — [Knox, Minge, and Evans, Hale. 

I never did. — [J. W. Du Bose, Montgomery. 

Have not. — [C. C. Howard, Autauga. 

This, perhaps, is the most important question asked, and if it could be answered with 
certainty, would do more to determine where the next annual generation comes from than 
anything else. I have found chrysalides during the early spring months iu fresh plowe<l 
land that I hdievcd to be the cotton-worm. Have seen the webbed chrysalis in tho 
leaves after frost. Do not think that late in the season they are developed into moths. 
If they do survive the winter, I think it is by being accidentally covered by the loo.so 
earth. The black lands south of this are very favorable for this, as they are soft and 
porous, and after rains large numbers of them would evidently be covered. The 
chrysalis has a vermicular motion ; are pointed at each end. May they not have the 
power of penetrating the earth ?— [R. T. Williams, Montgomery. 

This could hardly be answered satisfactorily, from the fact that there are so many 
other insects that in the chrysalis look so much like them. Some think they have 
found them in the winter, but I can't say whether to believe so or not, but rather 
incline to the opinion that they remain here in the moth state. — [R. W. Russell, 
Lowndes. 

Except in cotton that had been put up in a house.— [R. F. Henry, Pickens. 

The colored peojde tell us that they plow them up frequently this spring, and they 
are all alive, and will, no doubt, hatch moths at the proper time. A gentleman of 
our acquaintance exxierimeuted on one last spring, and it hatched out a moth in tho 

29 CI 



450 REPORT UPON COTTON INSECTS. 

first week in May. An intellijfeiit colored man, of long experience Tcith the cotton- 
worm, informs us that the chrysaliiles thnt are plowed up in the spring ore those which 
fail to hatch in the fall, in couseqneuce of tho lateness of the season and the su])er- 
Tentinn of cold weather: that they nltimatidy fall on the ground and hide themselves 
by boring into it. — [Dr. John Peurifoy, Montgomery. 

ARKANSAS. 

The chrysalides remain in the ground, in cotton-stalks, in corn stalks, about old 
Btunips and trees, in woods adjacent to cotton-fields, through the winter. This I know 
from nersonnl observation and from other persons who have made careful examina- 
tions.— [E. T. Dale, Miller. 

I have uf'ver noticed one after the weather gets cold. — [T. S. Edwards, Pope. 

Yes; have fonnd them healthy iu January, taken out of the ground and cottoa- 
stalks.— [E. T. Dale, Miller. 

Can't say that I have. — [Norborne Young, Columbia. 

FLORIDA. 

The chrysalis as such never remains, but going through the natural mutations the 
moth leaves the vicinity of the tields. — [R. Gamble, Leon. 

I have seen thousands of bales of cotton destroyed in Montgomery and Lowndes 
Counties, Alabama, but have never seen the chrysalis of the worm iu any form. — [J. 
M McGehee, Santa Rosa. 

Note.— It is maintained by some planters that the chrysalidesof the Alctla argiUacea 
is often plowed up in the spring. As a ])lanter of fifty years' experience, I have failed to 
find such chrysalides. I have repeatedly requested those who claimed to have seen 
them cither to subject them to proof by incuhation or to furnish mo with them, and 
I would do so iu order to set tho matter at rest. Up to this date no realization of this 
theory has been arrived at. — [Robert Gamble, Leon. 

GEORGIA. 

I have collected a number of chrysalid«»s and hung them in a northern exposure, 
where they survived a temjxTature of 12^ Fahr. After this I left home, and watched 
them no longer. — [William Jones, Clarke. 

Another correspondent (Pntnam County) writes: "During the winter of lS74-'75, 1 
found a numher of chrysalides in a sound, healthy state, after we had h:A several 
frosts and frcezrs; but they were protected by the bark on dead trees or stumps about 
the held, and I think that this is rather the exception than the rule.'' » 

I have, l)ut generally in a protected spot. — [William A. Harris, Worth. 

I have not. — [M. Kemp, Marion. 

No. — [D. P. Luke, Berrien. 

I have not known the chrysalis to survive a frost or found healthy in winter. — [T. 
Fnssell, Coffee. 

I never have. The c^.rysalis wings and migrates before frost. The larva and 
chrysalis found on the stalk after frost perishes before migration. — [S. P. Odom, 
Dooly. 

I never see any appearance of life in the chrysalis after frost and cold weather sets 
in. — [E. M. Thompson, Jackson. 

LOUISIANA. 

No. — [H. B. Shaw, Corcordia. 

I have heard of the chrysalis being plowed up in the spring, and also of tho moths 
being found in sheltered places dniiug winter — in hay and fodder stacks, outbuildings, 
under tho bark of old logs and stumps — but I cannot say that I have ever seen any- 
thing of the sort. — [Douglas M. Hamilton, West Feliciana. 

I have known the chrysalis to survive winters, having plowed them up iu February 
in a live condition. — [Dr. I. U. Ball, West Feliciana. 

I have found the chrysalis when plowing iu the month of Febrnary the year pre- 
ceding the destruction of the cotton. They were really so thick iu the ground that I 
was very much discouraged. But after breaking the ground up completely there came a 
rain that lasted three days and nights ; then the ground froze and destroyed the worms 
in the chrysalis form, and to my surprise we had a good crop year. — [John A. Mary- 
man, East Feliciana. 

MISSISSIPPI. 

My observation and experience has led me to conclude the Jnomis is native and 
does hibernate in some form ; that cultivation in July and August under c rtain con- 
ditions of season, such as plowing the land before the surface-soil is in good state for 
plowing, produces an artificial state of heat and moisture which is the most favorable 
for the hatching of eggs. The egg must survive the winter protected iu the ground. — 
[E. H. Anderson, Madison. 

Often— [J. W. Bnrch, Jefferson. 

I never have.— [Kenneth Clark, Chickasaw. 



APPENDIX II: ANSWERS TO CIRCULAR. 451 

Have hunted for them after frost, but found none.— [C. F. Sherriod, Lowndes. 

No.— [C. Welch, Covington. 

Yes; hut I am not certain later than December. One season I supposed from ap- 
pearances that I had some around in January, February, and March ; but when warm 
weather came they manifested no signs of vitality, and on close inspection I found 
them dead. They may have perished in January lor auglit I know. How long after 
December they survived I am unable to state.- [D. L. Phares, Wilkinson. 

Know nothing as to the winter quarters of this insect.— [John C. Russel, Madison. 

I have found hundreds of chrysalides while ginning cotton as late as Janu-iry, still 
living. — [J. Culbertson, Rankin. 

Found them all dead this year after the first killing frost.- [ W. Spillman, Clark. 

I have known them to hatch out of chrysalis after frost, but they have never re- 
maiLcd but a few days after frost ; they soou die, but doubtless depcsit their eggs 
before they die, and the eggs hatch the next year.— [George V. Webb, Amite. 

At tbe close of last season I had a number of the cotton-worms in chrysalis state, 
but they were destroyed by the severe freeze about Christmas.- [G. W. Smith- Vauiz, 
Madison. 

NORTH CAROLINA. 

No.— [F. I. Smith, Halifax. 

SOUTH CAROLINA. 

Never. — [James W. Grace, Colleton. 

We have never known, nor have I heard of any one else ever finding the chrysalis 
after frosts or during the winter. — [James C. Brown, Barnwell. 

TENNESSEE. 

I have never known the chrysa'f.s to survive even a slight frost, frosts so light as to 
have been unfelt by any except rarely sensitive plants. — [A. W. Hunt, M. D., Perry. 

TEXAS. 

They in some way become buried under the soil, and are preserved throughout the 
winter. Many of them are plowed up in the winter, and are in a sound state ; believe 
they can be kept eafely in The seed. Could not the chrysalis have beeu brought here 
in 18:54, in the boat- load of seed that came that year from New Orleans? — [P. S. Clarke, 
Waller. 

I have never found a sound or perfect living chrysalis after a severe frost, with cold 
enough to form ice. — [J. M. Glasco, Upshur. 

I do not think tLey survive a freeze in a chrysalis state. I do not think they are to 
be found in a healthy condition in Avinter. I am inclined to the opinion that themotb 
is migratory ; for iustauce, some seasons we failed to Iiave the worm for more than one 
year in succession ; then again it was upon us. The question, Where has it been all 
the while, asleep for two or more years? Hardly. — [O. H. P. Garrett, Washington. 

Not after a severe frost. — [H. J. H. Brensing, Bowie. 

I have not.— [P. S. Watts, Hardin. 

No. — [R. Wipprecht, Comal. 

I have found the chrysalides in apparently healthy condition during winter in seed 
cott(m, where it had gotten by picking, and in hay. — [A. Schroeter, Burnet. 

Yes. — [S. B. Tackaberry, Polk. 

Never. — [W. Barnes, Cherokee. 

They will, and do survive the frost in the ground, and have been found in wintei 
occasionally. — [J. H. Krancher, Austin. 

Never. — [C. B. Richardson, Rusk. 

I think 1 have. — [S; Ilarbert, Colorado. 

No, never. — [J. W. Jackson, Titus. 

Not of the cotton-miller ; they always come out, and thousands die if the cotton is 
leafless. — [Natt. Holman, Fayette. 



Question 5/. — Have you ever found the vioih hibernating or flying during mild wintet 

weather f 

ALABAMA. 

Often.— [P. T. Graves, Lowndes. 

Yes; have found them in trash, under old logs and brush.— [John D. Johnston, 
Sumter. 

I never have seen a moth here in winter at any time.— [J. N. Gilmore, Sumter. 

I never did. — [I. F. Culver, Bullock. 

Often in winter when the sun shines warm the moth flies out. — [J. S. Hausberger, 
Bibb. 



452 EEPOET UPON COTTON INSECTS. 

Yes. — [j. A. Callaway, Montgomery. 

lu fact I looked everywhere except on the roofs of houses ; moreover several fields 
■were just plowed, and i had again occasion to convince myself that there are no pupie 
of Aletia in the ground. I have to repeat here that I feel more than ever convinced 
that Aletia does not hibernate in these more northern portions of the cotton-belt. — 
[E. A. Schwarz, Eufaula. 

Frequently. The late winter, 1878-'79, has been unusually cold, yet moths have 
been seen flying from the bark of old trees on the first appearance of mild weather. — 
[H. Tutwiler, Hale. 

They are frequently seen of warm, pleasant evenings in winter, and sometimes come 
to the lamps at night and get their wings singed like other candle flies. — [Dr. John 
Penrifoy, Montgomery. 

In plowing in the spring and breaking iip crusty earth, where clods rise before the 
plow, these flies are sometimes seen thus turned out, or at least flies which we regard 
as the caterpillar fly, and in removing old heaps where logs or limbs or trash have 
been piled, in such places the fly is sometimes turned out in the early spring. — [An- 
drew Jay, Conecuh. 

That the moth lives through the winter admits of no doubt whatever in our climate, 
provided the winter is a mild one. If it is mild I can find moths any month. The 
moth has instinct enough to find comfortable quarters. The idea that they are brought 
here by the south wind certainly cannot hold good. If they should only come by this 
means, would they not come every year alike, or nearly so? — [H Hawkins, Barbour. 

Have never seen a moth in winter. — [R. 15. Dunlap, Greene. 

We have just passed some good frosts, yet the fly is seen daily in manufacturing 
molasses, November 2ii, 1876. — [Andrew Jay, Conecuh. 

Have seen moths at that time which quite resembled the cotton- worm moth. But 
cannot suy reliably that it was. — [C. C. Howard, Autauija. 

I don't think I h.ave, for the reason that the moth is an exceedingly shy insect, never 
seen flying about in d;iy time except when molested. — [R. W. Russell, Lowndes. 

No. — [R. F. Ilenrv. Pickens. 

Frequently.— [J H. Smith, J. F. Calhoun, Dallas. 

The moth has been securely wintered in dead logs and in hollow trees. The fall of 
deadened timber often discloses their presence in ([uantity when opened or bark falls 
oft". They have been found in mild winters flying out in the open air, and seen as late 
as February in their hiding places. — [C. M. Howard, Autauga. 

Yes; they travel in warm seasons of winter; generally hide themselves under the 
bark of dead pine trees, whore the bark becomes loose upon dead pines. — [J. C. Ma- 
thews, Dale. 

All times in mild winter around fodder-stacks and barns. In our opinion it is only 
the moth that comes out from the chrysalis which has lived here underground through 
winter that damages the crop. — [Knox, Minge, and Evans, Halo. 

I think I have found it on the walls of a dwelling and about a lamp in mild weather. 
[J. W. Du Bose, Montgomery. 

This is a well-known fact, and is answered above, yes. — [P. D. Bowles, Conecuh. 

Yes; they are very common in mild winter weather. — [H. A. Stoleuwerck, Perry. 

Yes.— [J. R. Rogers, Bullock. 

Since last writing we have had two or three heavy white frosts, viz, on the nights 
of the 22(1, 23d, and 2Gth October. On the morning o'f the 2L!d three moths came from 
the chrysalides which I have under a glass shade, on a shelf on my porch, exposed to 
the weather. The moths were benumbed with cold and apparently dead, but they all 
revived alter being brought into a warm room. I turned them loose next day while 
it was warm and pleasant. Last night the thermometer stood outdoors at 60° Fahr., 
and on visiting my baited trees I found several of the cotton-moths there. They seem 
to lie up during the cold spells and to come out when the weather moderates. — [E. A. 
Smith.] 

I judge by the scarcity of the cotton-moths since cold weather that they are not able 
to stand the cold, and have either been killed or forced to seek secure quarters. I have 
found none yet in bark of trees or elsewhere. Some of the chrysalides of the last brood 
are still rolled in the leaves in the cotton-field, but a few which I examined some days 
ago seem to have died. These chrysalides are slightly shriveled up, and some of them 
are certainly decaying, if I may judge by the smell when they are opened.— [E. A. Smith, 
Tuscaloosa. 

I have often seen the moth flying during mild winter weather that resembles the cotr 
ton-moth ; we call them here candle-flies, and find them about old houses and barns. — 
[H. C. Brown, Wilcox. 

Frequently about my gin-house and barn. — [M. W. Hand, Greene. 

I have. — [James M. Harrington, Monroe. 
I have not.— [R. H. Powell, Bullock. 
I have. — [I. D. Priesbach, Baldwin. 



APPENDIX II ANSWERS TO CIRCULAR. 453 

Frequently, especially over the roof of the gin-houses late in the evening. — [D.Lee, 
Lowuiles. 

I think I have seen the moth Hying duiing mild winter weather. — [A. D. Edwards, 
Mu.cou. 

ATJiANSAS. 

I have seen what I took to be the cotton-moth in mild winters.— [Norborne Young, 
Columbia. 
No.— [E. T. Dale, Miller. 
1 havo not. — [T. S. Edwards, Pope. 

FLORIDA. 

No. — [J. Bradford, Leon. 

Often. — [J. M. McGehee, Santa Rosa. 

Not earlier than February, and one solitary fly, ragged and worn, and on one occasion 
only. The insect does not liibernate, but continues to carry on the process of nature 
during the > ear, the intervals between successive generations being possibly longer 
during winter. — [R. Gamble, Leon. 

GEORGIA. 

A grassy field accidentally took fire in January, 187(). As the old pines with partly 
decayed sap would catch lire the moths were observed to escape from their hiding 
places iu large numbers. — [A. J. Cheves, Macon. 

I hav;> not. — [M. Kemp, Marion. 

I think I have seen moth flying about during the mild winter months of warm win- 
ters, but could not say that they were the moth above matured. — [E, M. Thompson, 
Jackson. 

Have never found the moth flying in winter. — [T. Fnssell, Coffee. 

Have on several occasions. — [William A. Harris, Worth. 

I never have. — [S. P. Odom, Dooly. 

I have not. — [D. P. Luke, Berrien. 

I do not belive they do. — [William Jones, Clarke. 

I carefully searched the stems without finding any eggs of the moth. An examina- 
tion of the woods, logs, and brushwood yielded no chrysalides of the cotton-worm. 
From the appearance of the chrysalides on the plants it must be conceded that the last 
worms do not quit the plant nor prepare themselves for winter in any way. In my 
opinion the chrysalides which do not yield the moth and are retarded by the severity 
of the weather cannot conceal themselves iu any way iu the ground, and must proba- 
bly perish from the cold or in the process of removing the dead plants to prepare for 
a fresh crop of cotton. — [A. R. Grote. 

LOUISIANA. 

Never. There is a moth seen on mild days, flying about the sheds and gins, but it is 
not the cotton-moth. — [H. B. Shaw, Concordia. 

I have never seen the moths flying during mild winter weather. — [John A. Mary- 
man, East Feliciana. 

I have never seen the moth during the winter. — [Dr. I. U. Ball, West Feliciana. 

MISSISSIPPI. 

Never later than December. I have been assitred that large numbers of Ald'ia were 
seen in the Black River region in Louisiana flitting about in warm evenings in the 
winter of 1880-'G7 and 18(j7-'G8, and also in the southwest part of this county. 
Although so assured by intelligent, close observers, well acquainted with this insect, 
I do not feel entirely certaiu ; I think it probable, however, that some survive the 
winter here in the lowlands. — [D. L. Phares, Wdkinson. 

The moth usually flies in the evening, between sunset and dark, and at that hour I 
have seen thousands of them sporting of a mild evening in winter. — [J. Culbertson, 
Rankin. 

I am satisfied they are with us all winter. — [J. W. Burch, Jefferson. 

No. — [Dr. E. H. Anderson, Madison. 

1 have not. — [C. Welch, Covington. 

Never. — [Kenneth Clark, Chickasaw. 

I have never seen a live moth later than the 15th of November. — [I. G. G. Garrett, 
Claiborne. 

Often in warm days about old out-buildings. — [W. Spillman, Clarke. 

Never — [George V. Webb, Amite. 

NORTH CAROLINA. 

No.— [F. I. Smith, Halifax. 

SOUTH CAROLINA. 

Never. — [James W. Grace, Colleton. 

I have not found the moth hibernating, but I have heard others say that they have. 



454 EEPORT UPON COTTON INSECTS. 

It goea under the thick bark of dead trees, and where large pieces of the sapwood of 
dead i>iue-trees are partially separated from the heart but still fast to the tree, make 
good winter quarters for them. — [James C. Brown, Barnwell. 

TENNESSEE. 

I found the moth both flying and hibernating last winter, which, however, was the 
mildest winter in my memory. — [A. W. Hunt, M. D., Perry. 

TEXAS. 

I have never found the moth after very cold weather, and have never seen the moth 
outside the cotton-field. I do not believe they hiliernate in this portion of the country, 
though I have found one farmer who said he found them plenty in March at an old 
cotton-gin. If they remained in the moth state all winter they would commence earlier 
on the cotton ; if in the chrysalis state, so soou as they become moths in the spring 
their work would begin, and we would have them every year, instead of only occasion- 
ally, as we do now. — [J. M. Glasco, Gilmer. 

No. — [A. Schroeter, Double Horn. 

The uncontradicted history of the advent of the moth establishes the fact that they 
first show themselves in the lower latitudes, on or bordering the coastline, and then 
spread rapidly in the interior, reaching very nearly to the parallel 31° ; that they may 
be said to be coetaneous in their movements. This wide b»^lt of territory, perhaps fully 
one hundred miles, which the moth compasses iu so short a time, which, considering 
its delicate strncture and clumsiness of flight, would make it next to impossible for it 
to traverse in so brief a time, must, therefore, refute the theory of its migration from 
any distant locality. This haves but little doubt that the moth springs each season 
from the field of their last year's operations, and the point left most in doubt is their 
prolonged preservation. — [William J. Jjnes, Galveston. 

Yes.— [S. B. Tackaberry, Polk. 

No. — [\V. Barnes, Cherokee. 

I tell you the moth cannot winter; its life is too short and too tender ; the slightest 
cold win kill it.— [P. S. Clarke, Waller. 

No. — [R. Wipprecht, Comal. 

Have never seen the cotton-moth hibernating or flying during mild winter weather, 
but have seen other moths doing so. — [O. H. P. Garrett, Washington. 

The moth has been noticed to fly iu very mild winter weather. I have seen one oc- 
casionally in January, during unusual mild weather, and so have others. — [J. H. 
Krancher, Austin. 

Never. — [C. B. Richardson, Rusk. 

Have not. — [A. Underwood, Brazoria. 

Yes. — [S. Harbert, Colorado. 

I have seen them flying after frost, and have often found them nnder bark of trees 
(dead), logs, and trash when winter set in. Some were living and some had perished.— 
[J. W. Jackson, Titus. 

Seen them in the middle of winter, on calm, warm days, flying around drifts and 
logs, trash, &c. — [Natt. Holman, Payette. 



Question 5g. — Row late in the spring has the moth heen found alive t 

ALABAMA. 

I never have seen a moth in the spring. — [J. N. Gilmore, Sumter. 

January. — [J. A. Callaway, Montgomery. 

All the spring. — [H. Tutwiler, Hale. 

Our opinion, formed from our observation, is that the cotton-moth has become ac- 
climated and naturalized to the climate of this section, and may be seen at all seasons 
of the year. Few it may be comparatively, but still they are here. — [Dr. John Peuri- 
foy, Montgomery. 

Cannot answer. Have dug up the chrysalis in July on a muddy ditch bank. — [H. 
A. Stolenwerck, Perry. 

Have seen them as early as March. — [James M. Harrington, Monroe. 

May. — [I. D. Dreisbach, Baldwin. 

Last of February and first of March. One strong proof that they hibernate here is 
that the chrysalis has been plowed up, put in a bottle, and when hatched out proved 
to be the genuine cotton-fly. — [Knox, Miuge, and Evans, Hale. 

The last of May. — [H. C. Brown, Wilcox. 

During entire winter and until warm weather. — [C. M. Howard, Autauga. 

At any time, late or early. But very few cotton planters look for them until about 



APPENDIX II ANSWERS TO CIRCULAR. 455 

midsiimmer, Lecause it has never been known to do any barm in tbe spring. — [D. Lee, 
Lowndes. 

I think it safe to say each and every month. — [P. D. Bowles, Conecuh. 

They are here always, iu this warm chmate: they can survive winter; this is their 
native home. — [J. C. Matthews, Dale. 

As late as April, if i remember correctly. — [H. Hawkins, Barbour. 

I suppose about May ia as soon as they are commonly si^cn ; the tly must have de- 
posited the egg for that worm in April. — [Andrew Jay, Conecuh. 

Any time alter lirst noticed, and the later the greater probability of finding it,— [C. 
C. Howard, Autauga. 

On the 8tb of April, 1868, I had an old barn taken down and found hundreds of the 
moths under tbe roof, active and capable of dying vigorously. Tbat year, in my judg- 
ment, the moths that hibernated here p opagated successfully. — [P. T. Graves, Lowndes. 

I have seen the moth iu winter and early spring. I do not think I have ever seea 
one later than April, from what I thought to be the previous year's crop.— [R. T. Will- 
iams, Montgomery, 

Have noticed them as late as the first of May, flying around lights'on a damp, warm 
evening, and some springs in great numbers. — [John D, Johnston, Sumter. 

Have never seen them. — [I. F. Culver, Bullock. 

I have never seen one in sining. — [R. W. Russell, Lowndes. 

GEORGIA. 

I never saw the moth in the spring; the moth is anight insect, and the first appear- 
ance of the worm is the eggs under the leaves. — [William Jones, Clarke. 
May 15.— [M. Kemp, Marion. 

Never saw the moth in spring. — [Timothy Fussell, Coifee. 
I have never seen nor heard of them iu si)rii)g. — [S. P. Odom, Dooly. 
Have f(mud them in July not hatched. — [William A. Harris, Worth. 
During the whole spring. — [E. M. Thompsou, Jackson. 

LOUISIANA. 

Never saw a moth in spring. — [H. B. Shaw, Concordia. 

The chrysalis can be found all through the spring. — [John A. Maryman, East Feliciana. 

MISSISSIPPI. 

I have already stated that I have seen the moth in every month of the year, but this 
is exceptional, and when it occurs it does not follow that the worms will he abundant. 
That seems to depend on the hygrometric condition of the season from June 20 till 
September. — [J. Culbertt-on, Rankin. 

1 think you could see them any month by close observation. — [T. W. Burch, Jefferson. 

I have never seen them iu the spring. — [Dr. E. H. Anderson, Madison. 

I do not know that it is ever found alive at all in early spring. — [C. Welch, Coving- 
ton. 

I am not sure that I ever saw it alive in any of its stages at any time from last of 
December till latter part of May. — [D. L. Phares, Wilkinson. 

I think they pass the winter in the chrysalis state, but very few escape destruction 
by the birds, the ichneumon, and other insects in sutumer. The flies come out iu about 
eight days after tbe chrysalis is formed ; later in the season it is sometimes two or 
three weeks before the fly comes out. — [I. G. G. Garrett, Claiborne. 

The last crop of one year ; at least some of them live until time to lay eggs the next 
year. — [W. Spillman, Clarke. 

I have never seen them in the spring, and never until July 8 and onto September. — 
[ George V. Webb, Amite. 

NORTH CAROLINA. 

I never saw one in spring. — [F. I. Smith, Halifax. 

SOUTH CAROLINA. 

From June to November ; have never seen it earlier than June nor later th.an Novem- 
ber, though Dr. Reese declares he has seen the moth out iu mild weather iu winter 
and believes it hibernates in that condition, becoming torpid on the advent of cold 
weather ; this, however, is contrary to our observation and we believe is a mistake. — 
[James W. Grace, Colleton. 

This cannot be answered. If alive at any time in the spring, it has been in that 
vicinity all winter. This is certain, for the moth would deposit its eggs on the first 
and nearest cotton-plant it found and then die. It only lives as a seed-bearer. — [Jamea 
C. Brown, Barnwell. 

TENNESSEE. 

The moth has doubtless been found alive and doing well as late as May, though I do 
not speak from my own experience. — [A. W. Hunt, M. D.j Perry. 



456 KEPOET UPON COTTON INSECTS. 



Have never seen them in spring alive. — [O. H. P. Garrett, Wasbington. 

I do not beliove they are ever seen in spring. — [J. M. Glasco, Uxishur, 

Never saw one in spring. — [K. Wippreclit, C'oiual. 

Not until its appearance in miilsninrner or fall. — [VV. Barnes, Cherokee. 

Never saw or heard of any. — [C. 13. Richardson, Knsk. 

Have never observed it before June. — [A. UnderwootI, Brazoria. 

They have been seen here all this winter. — [Stephen Har ert, Colorado. 

Daring the entire spring the uaoth uiaj' be seen. — [Natr. Ilolraan, Fayette. 

1 have never seen one alter severe winter set in. — [J. W. Jackson, Titus. 



Question 6. — Are any hirds, quadrupeds, or rrptilcs Inoivti to attack the insect in your 
» locality f 

ALABAMA. 

Domestic fowls and the poor do{}s of the freedraen eat them voraciously. It is to be 
hoped the government will not resort to the latter for their destruction. Give us the 
worms rather. Have never seen birds of any kind eating them, though am not i)ro- 
pared to say they do not. — [M. W. Hand, Greene. 

Birds, chickens, lurkeys, au<l hogs. — [A. D. Edwards, Macon. 

The leather winged bat feeds on the moth or lly. Hogs, turkeys, and chickens feed 
on the worm and chrysalis, and I presume all insectivorous birds also tlo. Poultry 
near houses thin them out greatly. — [II. H. Powell, Bullock. 

All insectivorous birds. Hogs root for and feed on the chrysalis.— [Knox, Minge, 
and Evans, Halo. 

Domestic fowls, dogs, and some birds, especially the bee-martin. — f C. M. Howard, 
Antauga. 

The wild turkey has been known to feed upon them in the field near the swamps ; 
also the hog — when they leave the field and get out so that the hogs can have access 
to tbem — will feed upon them. — [P. D. Bowles, Conecuh. 

Poultry will pick the worms from the stalks; at least that is my observation. — [J. 
W. Dn Bose, Montgomery. 

All insectivorous birds, chickens, and turkeys, and hogs. — [J. R. Rogers, Bullock. 

Birds, as in tLo case of other insects. — [C. C. Howard, Autauga. 

I have seen birds, domestic fowls, and pigs eating them. — [I. F. Culver, Bullock. 

Birds— [J. n. Smith, J. F. Calhoun, Dallas. 

Nothing except hogs. They will eat all they can get, and if allowed to remain in 
the cotton-field will almost entirely destroy the plant in their efiorts to get the 
■worms. — [R. F. Henry, Pickens. 

All domestic fowls that are carnivorous eat the worm. All carnivorous birds eat 
them. The wild turkey is particularly fond of them. Hogs eat them greedily. — [J. 
N. Gilmore, Sumter. 

Nearly all birds and hogs. Cotton planted near farm-houses has been greatly pro- 
tected by the fowls eating them — [John D. Johnston, Sumter. 

Yes; all insectivorous birds attack the worm. — [R. W. Russell, Lowndes. 

Birds, chickens, turkeys, all feed on the worms. Hogs will feed and fatten on them. — 
[R. S. Williams, Montgomery. 

All insectivorous birds feed on the moth, chrysalis, and worm ; this includes domes- 
tic fowls of all kinds, except pigeons. Cuts, dogs, and hogs greedily eat the worms 
and chrysalis. Many insects feed on them ; among them a sprightly black beetle, 
either to deposit eggs in the shell of the chrysalis or to suck out the juices, destroys 
thousands. — [P. T. Graves, Lowndes. 

When hogs can get to them they destroy them with great avidity. Chickens, tur- 
keys, and almost all kinds of fowls are very eager after them in this Iccaliry. I am 
not sure that the smaller birds feed upon them, but I think they do. — [J. S. Hausber- 
ger, Bibb. 

Yes. — [J. A. Callaway, Montgomery. 

I know that poultry does, particularly turkeys. — [H. Tutwiler, Hale. 

Birds. — [James M. Harrington, Monroe. 

A great many birds and poultry.^ — [J. C. Brown, Wilcox. 

Swine, chickens, turkeys, geese, and ducks. — [J. C. Matthe^vs, Dale, 

The impression is that almost all birds will feed upon the worms. Immediately aronnd 
the cabins where there are poultry and turkeys the cotton will not be destroyed. — [H. 
A. Stolenwerck, Perry. 

Domestic fowls and hogs. — [D. Lee, Lowndes. 

Domestic fowls, birds, dogs, hogs, and coons eat them. — [R. B. Dunlap, Greene, 



APPENDIX II — ANSWERS TO CIRCULAR. 457 

All insectivorons birds prey more or less upon the worm. No qua'lnipecls or rep- 
tiles to my knowledge. — [I. D. Driesbacb, Baldwin. 

There are various I'owls and birds (no quadrupeds or reptiles known to me) which 
feed upon the caterpillar. Tiirkeyseat them ^'reedily, and a cottou-lield near adwell- 
ing has been preserved by the turkeys. Chickens also eat them, but their height pre- 
vents ihem from destroying them as effectually as the turkeys. Blackbirds, bee-mar- 
tins, and other small birds teed on them. — [Andrew Jay, Conecuh. 

All birds that would attacklhe moth, hogs, and dogs eat the worms. Ants kill them 
if they hud them on the ground. No birds seem to prey on the worm. — [li. Hawkins, 
Barbour. 

All the birds feed upon the moths, and barn-yard fowls, even the geese, eat the ■worms 
with great gusto. And in thisconuectiou, itoccuis to us that henneries might be built 
at proper distances and made a paying institution, for we have noticed that allarouud 
the barn-yard the cotton is saved from the worm, continues to grow, aud develops a 
full crop forseveral acres, or as far out as the hens feed, while the balauc(Mscom])letely 
riddled, aud the loss oftentimes ouc-half of the crop. This proposition woukl be laughed 
at if named here, while the planters pay 81 '-^o per acre for Paris green, aud if the sea- 
son be rainy the poison fails and the result is a great loss. — [Dr. John Peuriioy, Mont- 
gomery. 

Mr. Donovan is always able 'to keep the worms in check by the following simple and 
cheaj) method: ho drives his large flock of tuikc.\s into the lield, and if the plants are 
too high, a boy brings the worms down by knocking at the plants with a stick. This 
is repeated every day, aud this remedy has proved so far invariably a success. Of 
course it can only be applied in small lields which are near the house aud when the 
cotton-plants are not of large size. According to Mr. Donovan, the chickens are very 
fond, too, of the cotton- worms, but of coursi; cannot reach as high as the turkeys. Of 
other birds feeding upon the cotton- worms, Mr. Douovan mentioued the '• yellow-jack- 
ets," which ho often observed iu his cottou-lield ; and he sometimes saw them ])ulling 
the chrysalides of Aletia from their webs and eating the contents. — [E. A. Schwarz, 
Eufaula. 

ARKANSAS. 

Mocking-birds, bluebirds, and yellow-billed cuckoo. — [Norborne Young, Columbia. 

Do not know of any bird, quadruped, or reptile that eats the worms. — [E. T. Dale, 
Miller. 
. I do not know of any. — [T. S. Edwards, Pope. 

FLORIDA. 

Blackbirds, swine, and sunshine. — [J. M. McGehee, Santa Rosa. 
Birds and fowls. — [John B. Carrin, Taylor. 

Birds, chickens, turkeys, and geese eat them. — [F. M. Meekin, Alachua. 
The loggerhead and bee- martin. — [John Bradford, Leon. 

GEORGIA. 

The hog madly devours them when permitted in the cotton-fields. Also the common 
fowls. Chickens are very destructive to them, especially the guinea chicken, which 
travels further from the dwelling than the common fowl. — [S. P. Odom, Dooly. 

The partridges prey upon them, and hogs turned into the field when they are numer- 
ous have been known to eat them. — [M. Kemp, Marion. 

I know of none. — [A. J. Cheeves, Macon. 

Turkeys, blackbirds, and chickens. — [D. P. Luke, Berrien. 

Birds, fowls, and hogs.— [Timothy Fussell, Coffee. 

The birds destroy some, but not in appreciable numbers. — [William Jones, Clarke. 

LOUISIANA. 

All birds, particularly the crow-blackbirds — [H. B. Shaw, Concordia. 

Many kinds of fowls and birds prey upon the worms, after they have attained some 
size, and perhaps even prey upon the eggs before they are hatched. When the worms 
are numerous the fowls and birds gather to the cotton-fields, and remain there daily 
feeding on them. T know of no animals who do this, except of the feathered kind. — 
[D. M. Hamilton, West Feliciana. 

The common fowls will sometimes eat them. — [John A. Maryman, East Feliciana. 

MISSISSIPPI. 

A great many sparrows and other small birds appear about the same time, and before 
and after, but whether to devour them or other insects I know not. I do not believe 
anythiug destroys them to any great extent. — [K. Clarke, Chickasaw. 

Having occasion to move my fowls during the summer to a location near the cotton- 
field, my chickens took to the field and ate so many worms that they did not care for 
other kind of food, aud seemed to do well on them. Turkeys and guinea-fowls are 
very fond of them. — [C. F. Sherriod, Lowndes. 



458 REPORT UPON COTTON INSECTS. 

Black and blue birds, and some species of tbo sparrow and a green lizard, are often 
found on the plant, apparently in quest of tbem.— [Dr. E. 11. Anderson, Madison. 

Ducks, geese, chickens, most small birds, and especially turkeys, wild and tame. — 
[C. Welch, Covington. 

I have seeu birds eating the worms, not with much of a relish as to lead me to sup- 
pose they iuteudod to destroy them. — [John C. Russel, Madison. 

All kinds of birds, particularly the summer sparrow, also turkeys and chickens. — 
[I. W. Burch, Jeli'erson. 

It is alleged by the most reliable observers that a number do so. Being near-sighted 
I cannot swear to seeing anything of the kind. — [D. L. Phares, Madison. 

I have not observed any wild bird feeding on the worms. I have noticed small pigs 
and some large hogs feeding on them; and our domestic turkeys are the greatest ene- 
mies of that worm.— [George V. Webb, Atnite. 

The blue-bird, mocking-bird, and martin feed on them, the martin on the moth, the 
others on both moth and worm. Chickens and turkeys also feed on them. They both 
soon learn to tind the chrys.'ilis. I have often seeu chickens jumping ui) for them. A 
few years ago I called to see a friend in an adjoining county who had a large planta- 
tion, and found his cotton stripped of its leaves, except a ten-acre lie'd near his house. 
On inquiry ho told me that his turkeys liad kei)t the worms from injuring that field. 
It was then the time of the third crop of worms. — [W. Spillman, Clark. 

KORTH CAROLINA. 

None. — [J. Evans, Cumberland. 

Birds will sometimes feed on them.— [F. I. Smith, Halifax. 

SOUTU CAROLINA. 

None. — [James W. Grace, Colleton. 

Black-birds and turkeys eat them.— [P. S. Febler, Orangeburgh. 

Cotton-fields in the vicinity of such swamps where wild turkeys are found, suffer less 
damage from caterpillars, because the turkeys will destroy them. There is no bird ex- 
cept this that seems to eat them ; this may be because there is so much else they prefer 
at this time of the year. — [James C. Brown, Barnwell. 

TENNESSEE. 

The lady-bird and bee-martin doubtless destroy a great many of the moths, and it ia 
asserted that a small sap-sucker bird destroys the larva and eggs.— [A. W. Hunt, Perry. 

TEXAS. 

It is said that a little gray bird occasionally preys upou the insect.— [A. Schroeter, 
Burnet. 

Hogs are said to feed on them when hungry, but I know of no bird or fowl that feeds 
on them. I have chickens, guineas, and turkeys, running in the ticld where t ho worms 
were numerous, but have never seeu theiu feeding on them.— [J. M. Glasco, Upshur. 

Yes; birds, ants, and pigs. — [Samuel D.ivis, Iluut. 

Mocking-birds. — [R. W'ipprecht, Comal. 

The insects are destroyed, more or less, by the little martin or swallow.— [O. H. P. 
Garrett, Washington. 

Occasionally turkeys feed on them, but to no great degree.— [W. Barnes, Cherokee. 

Turkeys, chickens, and some small birds. — [P. S. Watts, Hardin. 

None are known. — [H.J. H. Brensing, Bowie. 

English sparrows and swine. — [P. S. Clarke, Waller. 

There are no natural enemies to the cotton-worm that will benefit the farmer. — [W. 
T. Hill, Walker. 

There are numerous enemies of the insect ; all the small birds here destroy the same. 
The laud turtles, toads, lizards, eat ; chickens, turkeys, ducks, partridges, prairie chick- 
ens destroy immense numbers. — [J. H. Krancher, Austiu. 

There are many birds and insects that eat the worms, but none enough to stop their 
destruction. — [S. Harbert, Colorado. 

I saved a small lot of cotton near the residence by feeding the tm-keys in it, and they 
destroyed the worms so as to save the cotton from much injury. In 184(5 and 1847, 
after stripping the cotton of leaves and small bolls, the worms crawled by millions 
through the fence in the road, and my hogs promenaded the road eating them. — [C. 
B. Richardson, Rusk. 

Birds and domestic fowls are said to feed upon them to a limited extent, but not to 
diminish their number apparently, and soon tire of them. — [A. Underwood, Brar.oria. 

A small species of brown or black bird prey upon the worms more or less, but they 
soon become so numerous that the birds cannot affect them. Chickens, turkeys, and 
hogs are fond of the worm.— [O. H. P. Garrett, Washington. 



APPENDIX II ANSWERS TO CIRCULAR. 459 

Question Ga. — Are any prcdaccous insects or parasites known to prey upon it, either in 
the egg, larva, or chrysalis state? 

ALAUAMA. 

There is a parasite that deposits a grub that destroys it iu the chrysalis state. This 
fact was I'ouud out by bottling a chrysalis, which hatched a parasite resembling a Hy 
somewhat smaller than a house-ily. — [James M. Harrington, Monroe. 

We know of none, — [H. A. Stolcawercli, Perry. 

I think not. — [I. D. Driesbach, Baldwin. 

The common little red ant is the only insect known to attack it. — [H. C. Brown, 
Wilcox. 

Ants. — [Knox, Minge, and Evans, Ilale. 

It is believed that the common bhick ants prey npon the egg. I know of none inter- 
fering with the worm or chrysalis. — [C. M. Howard, Autauga. 

I know of none. — [D. Lee, Lowndes. 

I know of no inject that preys upon it. — [A. D. Edwards, Macon. 

Ants are numerous at times, and seem to feed on them. — [Andrew J;iy, Conecuh. 

I have seen the ants at work on the egg and larva. — [I. F. Culver, Bullock. 

I do not think that the eggs are fed upon. — [P. T. Graves, Lowndes. 

Yes ; the ichneumon liy in the chrysalis state and ants in the eggs and larva. — [J. 
A. Callaway, Montgomery. 

But the eggs are so much more numerous than the ants that the eggs are not 
missed. — [Dr. John Peurifoy, Montgomery. 

ARKANSAS. 

Carabid beetles, more especially the Cicindelidae, destroy both eggs and larva. — [E. 
T. Dale, Miller. 

There are none. — [T. S. Edwards, Pope. 

The small red ant. — [Norborne Young, Columbia. 

FLORIDA. 

A large, black wasp will eat the larva and worm. And there is an insect com- 
monly called the musquito-hawk (I do not know its technical name) ; it is long-bod- 
ied, has two sets of membranous wings, a large head, and a long continuation of the 
abdominal portion of the body ; there are many sizes and colors ; they live on insects 
and on each other. I have frequently seen them catcli the moth of the cotton cater- 
pillar. These musquito-hawks are very numerous here, of many varieties, varying in 
size from an inch to 2^ or 3 inches in length of body, and I think it does more to pre- 
vent the development of the cotton caterpillar than all the rest of its enemies. — [F. 
M. Meekin, Alachua. 

We only know through the entomologist that there is an ichneumon-fly that lays its 
eggs in tlie caterpillar. — [R. Gamble, Leon. 

GEORGIA. 

The ant preys upon the egg and worm to a certain extent. — [William A. Harris, 
Worth. 

None, that I ever heard of. — [M. Kemp, Marion. 

None, to eifect its progress. — [Timothy Fussel, Coffee. 

One species of the ichnenmou. — [William Jones, Clarke. 

Enemies, the most numerous of which were pupae of Pimpla conqaisitor. There were 
also a number of Tachina larva noticed. — [A. R. Grote. 

LOUISIANA. 

Never saw any. — [H. B. Shaw, Concordia. 

Many kinds of insects prey upon the army worm while in the shape of eggs, and 
afterward while iu the form of worms. Ants of many kinds are found preying on them 
in good weather, but not in bad, and this is one reason given why the worm increases 
so much faster in rainy, wet weather than in dry and fair weather. The cotton-tields 
have many enemies of the worm out in fair weather devouring eggs and worms, but 
rain and wet drive these enemies back to their retreats, and then the worm breeds 
without let or hinderance. — [D. M. Hamilton, West Feliciana. 

I know of nothing that preys upon it in any form. — [ Johu A. Maryman, East Feli- 
ciana. 

The chinch-bug is known to be one of its enemies, but of late years the ant has 
proved to be the greatest enemy, both to the egg and larva. I entertain the belief 
that they will ultimately destroy the worm if it should prove to be indigenous rather 
than of foreign origin. — [Dr. I. U. Ball, West Feliciana. 

MISSISSIPPI. 

Yes ; have often found the worm with its juices sucked out ; have seen a small louse 
at work on a dead worm ; also am satisfied there is an insect that deposits its egg either 



460 REPORT UPON COTTON INSECTS. 

in the worm before he webs up in the chrysalis state ; the larva hatches and feeds upon 
it. — [J. W. Barch, Jeifersou. 

None known. —[.John C. Rnssel, Madison. 

I have seen a green cbiuch suckiajj the juices of the cottoa-worm ; cannot say that 
the worm was injured by the act. — [J. Culbertson, Rankin. 

1 know of none. — [C. Welch, Covingtou. 

In 1870 I gathered 180 chrysalides ou the 16th of November. I put them np, some in 
earth and some in cotton-seed ; the following February tbe ichneumon Hies couimeuced 
coming out of them instead of the caterpillar flies. 1 failed to got a caterpillar fly out 
of the lot. This year I gathered 100 ou the 1st of November and i)Ut tbem up as they 
were webbed up in tbe leaves; teu days after I found all except four destroyed by 
very small insects. — [I. G. G.Garrett, Claiborne. 

There is an iusect, tbe name of which I cannot give, that pierces with its back into 
the worm and the worm expires ; but tbis is of no con»eqiieuoo, tbe uumber of worms 
being billions and tbe bugs few comi>aratively. — [George V. Webb, Amite. 

Many are said to do so, of which I canuot testify, but for tlie following I can: 1. 
Soldier-bugs pierce the caterpillars, suck their juices, and tben destroy tbem. (See 
illustratiou plate Rural Carolinian, August, 1870, p. G-)".}). Tbo soldier-bug presents 
hii lance, moves deliberately and steadily along till tbe caterpillar is impaled. Then 
come smaller soldier-bugs, sometimes quite a uum!)er, and join iu the least. 2. Cer- 
tain ichu»Mimon-flies deposit their eggs iu them, when the chrysalis turns out tbe ich- 
neumou-lly instead of tbe Alctia. 

3. Auotlier soft, small parasite fosters on the chrysalis. Tbere is another fly which 
is probably an enemy of the Alctia, but too sly to be caugbt. Tbe boll-worm and 
moth I do not give, nor a species of social caterpillar which I have not seen on the 
cotton-plant for many years, nor several spiders which infest it, nor the cut-worms, 
&c. — [D. L. Phares, Madisou. 

I have never seen the worm attacked by any other insect than tbe grass- worm, and 
then only when brought in contact. 1 find the lady-bird and icbiieumou fly and other 
insects freiiuenting the plant among the worms. — [Dr. E. II. Anderson, Madison. 

In my report ou tbe cotton infesting insects made last autumn, in tbe jiortion in 
■which mention is made of insect enemies of the Aletia, one is referred to ami obscurely 
flgured on paper. I find that my son bad drawn it sejiarately and distinctly, and it 
jiroved to be a Corriiulld or llippudama. We are both oi the opinion it is tbe larva of 
CoccineUa noremnotafa, so abundant on the cottou-plaut. — [D. L. Pbares, Wilkinson. 



NORTH CAROLINA. 



None. — [J. Evans, Cumberland. 
No. — [F. 1. Smith, Halifax. 



SOUTH CAROLINA. 



None. — [James W. Grace, Colleton. 

The common ant maintains an equilibrium when it is not too wet. The ant will 
destroy the eggs unless the rainy weatber keeps it in its retreat. This is the reason 
that a dry season is never a caterpillar one. — | James C. Brown, Barnwell. 

TENNESSEE. 

The family, in its difl"erent phases, are preyed upon by ants, the ichneumon, the Mc- 
ffacephala Carolina, and x)erhaps seven.l other insects. Tbeir destruction by enemiea 
must be greater than is at present supposed. Tbis is one held in which the labor of 
entomologists might be profltably employed. — [A. W. Hunt, Perry. 

TEXAS. 

The little black ant will devour the eggs, as they do the lice that sometimes get on 
the plant while young. — [P. S. Watts, Hardin. 

Some species of the ant will prey upon the egg. — [O. H. P. Garrett, Washington. 

There are several species of beetle that prey on th m, but as they live on the 
ground and the cotton-worm on the plant, they get but few. The devil's coach-horse, 
Jiedavius novenarius, the ichneumon-fly, and a few other insects prey on the worm, but 
not to any peroeptible diminution of them. — [W. Barnes, Cherokee. 

None are known.— [H. J. H. Brensiug, Bowie. 

Ants.— [?. S. Clarke, Waller. 

I believe there is a parasite that sometimes attacks the larva ; this I infer from find- 
ing the larva nearly dead, dead, and decaying. I gave it but little attention at the 
time, for I was thoroughly disheartened by their ravages. — [J. M. Glasco, Upshur. 

Ants; no parasites observed. — [Samuel Davis, Hunt. 

Ants prey upon tbe egg, larva, and chrysalis. — [S. B. Tackaberry, Polk. 

Nothing but the small ant. — [S. Harbert, Colorado. 

In dry weather the little ants that are to be found everywhere prey upon them ; 



APPENDIX II ANSWERS TO CIRCULAR. 461 

•when they get knocked off on the ground and the sun drives them up the stalk for 
protection, they attack the chrysalides, &c. — [Natt. Ilolman, Fayette. 

None that I have any knowledge of. — [J. W. Jaclcson, Titus. 

Nuniberle.^s insects destroy it, viz, wasps, lady-bugs, (destroy the egg), devil's horse 
or alligator fly, spiders, the rear or devil's horses, {Mani'ulae)^ and several varieties of 
field bugs are its most active enemies ; also several varieties of metallic-green large 
bugs, sometimes called Spanish flies and ants. — [J. H. Krancher, Austin. 



Question 7. — Tfliathas been the result of the efforts to allure and destroy the moths, and 
what nuthoda hure proved, most satisfactoru f Give your estimate of the relative value for 
this purpose of poisoned sugar, molasses, and vinegar, and Jives. 

ALABAMA. 

All the vcget.able poisons, as china, Jerusalem oak, Jamestown weed, &c., have been 
tried and failed. Lamps and pine-kuot tires were only ))artially successful. No gins 
or traps have been used that we know of. In fact, nothing has been successfully used 
but Paris green (Royal's patent). The Texas "worm destroyer" v,a8 successful at 
first ; last year it failed, and the ]danters who used it here think it has been counter- 
feited or in some way deteriorated. The fact we think is that they did not make it 
strong enough. Great care must be observed not to put too much of either this or 
Paris green on the cotton, for they all contain arsenic, which will certainly parch up 
the leaves and injure the cotton. We have no experience in molasses, vinegar, and 
tires ; they are all too slow for this emergency. — [Dr. John Peurifoy, Montgomery. 

I have seen tires used at night and drugs used to poison, but don't believe it ever 
did any good, for the worms finally eat up all the cotton. — [I. F. Culver, Bullock. 

Eftbi'ts have been made to allure and destroy the moths years ago by lights and 
poisoned sugar, and molasses and vinegar. While they destroyed large quaulities of 
the insects, it did not seem to aft'ect the numbers of worms to any extent, and do not 
consider that means of any practical value. — [John D. Johnston, Sumter. 

The Paris green is the only remedy tried in this locality for the destruction of the 
worms, and that with but little success.— [J. S. Hausberger, Bibb. 

Nothing yet satisfactory. — [A. D. Edwards, Macon. 

Tht? results of the efforts to allure and destroy the moths have generally proved un- 
satisfactory ; poisoned molasses is supposed to be the best method. — [J. A. Callaway, 
Montgomery. ' 

Some years ago the planters (many of them) used tin plates made for the purpose, 
on which were placed vinegar sweetened with sugar or molas-es. Fires were also 
made on stands in the field to attract the fly. But as they have been generally aban- 
doned, I suppose the results were not satisfactory. — [H. Tutwilcr, Hale. 

All the suggestions published in newspapers have been tried by the farmers of this 
county by building fires at night and then going with brush in hand thnnigh the cot- 
ton, also stake fires with pans of water; all failed to do any perceptible good.— -[P. 
D. Bowles, Conecuh. 

The ravages of cotton insects in this country have been considerable, but no exper- 
iments have been made to check or destroy them.— [J. W. Elliott, Marshall. 

Elforts made todestroy moths have all proved failures ; none of them worth a cent. — 
[M W. Hand, Greene. 

There have been several experiments made with lighted torches, but nothing yet 
discovered that proved a success.— [II. C. Brown, Wilcox. 

But little has been accomplished; much money has been wasted in efforts to poison 
them. — [J. C. Matthews, Dale. 

The moth will be attracted by sugar and molasses. Fires are more attractive and 
destructive. — [R. H. Powell, Bullock. 

I have no experience ; have made no efforts to allure or destroy except when they 
first appear, which is generally in a small space. What I have done, then, was simply 
to get a number of bauds and pick them off' and kill them, and I am led to believe if 
there were no neighboring fields to supply the crop of flies adjacent they can thus be 
set back one generation or be, say six weeks, later in their destruction. All cannot 
thus be killed, of course.— [Andrew Jay, Conecuh. 

Have tried fire and sulphur without good effect. — [James M. Harrington, Monroe. 

Lights at night and sweetened baits have been used, but with such unsatisfactory 
results as to be abandoned.- [Charles M. Howard, Autauga. 

None. — [Knox, Minge, and Evans, Hale. 

Honey, sugar, sirups, and sorghum sirup are the sweets used. Fires at night have 
been resorted to for the destruction of the moths. Coal-oil has been experimented 
with. The difficulties met with in using it are : Ist. Want of a suitable means of 
throwing the mixture of water and oil upon the plants; 2d. The danger of killing the 



462 EEPORT UPON COTTON INSECTS. 

plant when the proportion of coal-oil is too great ; 3d. The mixing of the oil and 
•water. — [E. A. Smith, Tuscaloosa. 

No efforts have been made to destroy the moth. Fires will attract them. — [H. A. 
Stoleuwerck, Perry. 

I have known little success to follow the efforts to destroy the moths. — [D. Lee, 
Lowndes. 

Paris green was used some years past for the cotton-worm. — [George W. Thagard, 
Crenshaw. 

Every effort to destroy the moth by allurement or traps are consummate failures. I 
have experimented in trying to decoy, and have known others to try fires, traps, and 
lamps at night, aud every etfort was worthless and a loss of time. Vinegar, molasses, 
ifec, on plates, or otherwise, worth nothing. — [H. Hawkins, Barbour. 

No method has been even hopeful for decoying the moth. If a concerted effort could 
Le made with lights, sweetened water, and poison, success is possible, yet where one 
plantation is guarded and another not, the moths from the unguarded lield will be in 
sutficient nural)ers to bring destruction in a few days. — [P. T. Graves, Lowndes. 

The different methods have been tried to destroy the moth, but all have failed. — [J. 
N. Gilmore, Sumter. 

Fires or lights at night attract them. — [C. C Howard, Autauga. 

But little value is attached to this method of <lestruction. It has only been tried on 
a limited scale. Poisons, torches, &c., have been used with but little success. — [R. W. 
Ilussell, Lowndes. 

All methods of alluring the moth by fires or sweetened substances have proved 
futile. Many are indeed destroyed, but sufficient remaiu to do their destructive 
work. — [R. S. Williams, Montgomery. 

As everywhere iu Alabama and Mississippi, nothing is done at present for the de- 
struction of JJciia. It is very tronblcsoino to find a contrivance which has been in 
use for sfmie years. — [E. A. Schwarz, Barbour. 

I spent one day and a half in hunting up a lantern which was used here three or 
four year-, ago. The manufacturer of this lantern, which I sent to tho department 
per ex|)ress, sold, iu ld7:J or '74, K'O at 7.3 cents apiece. Tho pan at the bottom of this 
lamp is tilled with molasses. There is, of course, a chimney belonging to it, which 
the express company refused to send on with tho lantern. However, this chimney is 
not peculiar. From information received from several farmers, I learned that these 
lanterns were very effective and were discarded, pan ly owing to the fact that ihe 
worms have not been destructive iu tho past few yeai's, and partly because only a few 
of the planters used them. The Rev. C. R. Dudley, of Canton, Miss., has invented and 
patente I, in 1672 or '?;?, a lantern for the destruction of Ahlia, aui\ about 50 of his 
lanterns were sold in Canton at about $1 apiece. I did not succeed in getting one of 
these lanterus, and the manufacturer of them, Mr. Snyder, in Canton, was unable to 
give me a descrijition. Mr. Dudley has taken back all lanterns not sold, aud has re- 
moved to Saint Louis, Mo., where letters will reach him care of Dr. Rob. Faris. These 
lanterus c;)nsisted of a kerosene lamp with a parabolic refractor, and a st icky sub- 
stance was smeared on a pan surroui.ding the lamp. — [E. A. Schwarz, Barbour. 

ARKANSAS. 

There have been no remedies used to destroy it in this county, except a patent some 
one made in the shape of a funnel with a light placed iu it. I think fires would be 
preferable to anvthing else, as the moth is attracted by light, and would be con- 
Bumed — [T. S. Edwards, Pope. 

No experiujcnts. — [Norl orne Young, Columbi.a. 

Some experiments made with fins show that the fires, while they attract the moths, 
destroy but few, aud fields iu which fires have been kept have suffered more than those 
adjacent in which there were no fires. — [E. T. Dale, Miller. 

FLORIDA. 

Little or no effort has been made. My opinion is that something could be done with 
poisoned molasses aud fires or lamps. A few nights ago I placed a cup 3 inches in 
diameter with a little mol.isses iu it at a distance from lights and cotton-plants, and 
found 6 moths in it the next morning, all of them cotton caterpillar moths. A year 
or two ago I divided an overripe watermelon and placed it in a similar position, and 
by eight o'clock at night there were 50 or 75 moths feeding on it. Watermelons could 
bo easily grown with cotton and made to serve a good purpose. — [John Bradford, 
Leou. 

No remedies ever tried in this county. — [John B. Carriu, Taylor. 

Have no experience in destroying moths ; think that fires or rather torches at night, 
established plentifully over the field, would be most destructive, as the moth seeks the 
torch. I further believe that tho field-hands ought to be instructed to watch or ob- 
serve the ])lant closely when hoeing, and destroy all the worms found. Intelligent 
and faithful hands might prevent the destructive increase by this timely preven- 
tion. — [F. M. Meekin, Alachua. 



APPENDIX II — ANSWERS TO CIRCULAR. 463 

GEORGIA. 

Many futile anil unsuccessful efforts liave been made, such as poisoning and build- 
iu<r, but all proved to be a failure. — [S. P. Odoni, Dooly. 

Have never tried any remedies to destroy them. I think fires at night would destroy 
the moth. — [Timothy Fussel I, Coffee. 

I do not believe any of the methods of destruction mentioned would do any good. — 
[William Jones, Clarke. 

Tljey seldom appear in our neighborhood in such numbers as to do much damage, but 
when they do come it seems as if any attempt to destroy them could not l>ut be futile ; 
certainly nothiiig has yet beer, done that is at all adequate. — [A. J. Cheves, Macon. 

We have tried Paris green and arsenic alone, with some success. — [William A. Harris, 
Worth. 

The most satisfactory effort is the night-lamp. Paris green does its work well, but 
it is dangerous. Fires built all over the held at night is, in my opinion, the best way 
to destroy them. — [M. Kemp, Marion. 

None has ever been ut^ed iu this county. — [D. P. Luke, Berrien. 

There has been little attention paid to the destruction of this moth, because we do 
not consider them as hurtful as in other sections. — [E. M. Thompson,. Tackson. 

LOUISIANA. 

I know of nothing but Paris green being used of late years. Lamps, fires, and some 
substance beneath the fire have been used, but abandoned, as it generally turned out 
that enough moths escaped after being attracted by the tiro to entirely destroy the 
cotton where the fiie was used. It might bo advantageous to concentrate by this 
means the worms on certain portions of the cotton, and then destroy theui by Paris 
green at much less cost. Think they are attracted more by the light as all other moths 
are. — [H. B. Shaw, Concordia. 

No good has resulted from the efforts to allure and destroy the m'^ths ; no actual 
benefit from poisoned sugar, molasses, and vinegar, and tires. — [Dr. I. U. Ball, West 
Feliciana. 

I have never tried any plan to destroy the moths, but have heard of many. No plan 
will avail unless it is general, for the reason that one planter who neglects to destroy 
the moths on his place, would caut^e enough to be produced in his fields to eat up the 
wh(de neighborhood. No doubt thousands could be destroyed by logs piled up and 
fired in the fields at night, or by fires built on platforms of pine, or other iutl;immab'» 
materials, or by large lamjis or other contrivaices. The moths are attracted great dis- 
tances at night by lights, and many injurious ways might be jjlanned to attract and. 
destroy them. — [D. M. Hamilton, West Feliciana. 

All etibrts to destroy the moths have been useless. — [John A. Maryman, East Felici- 
ana. 

MISSISSIPPI. 

For a number of years nothing in my part of the country has been done to destroy 
them. Some attempts were at one time made, but did not prove satisfactory, and 
have all been abandoned. Like every other misfortune, we have made up our minds 
to submit to it — [K. Clarke, Chickasaw. 

Without general concert of action, I think individual effort would be useless. — [C. 
F. Shcrriod, Lowndes. 

No eflbrts have been made here to destroy them, except to pick off and destroy the 
worm and chrysilis, all of which proved futile. — [C. Welch, Covington. 

Building fires at night has been practiced by some; the results I am unable to give. 
I know of no p. isoned sugar, «S;c., having bet-u tried. — [William T. Ijewis, Winston. 

Few or no remedies have beiu used in my locality. Some years since, light wood- 
fires and plates filled with molasses and vinegar were used with partial success. Lan- 
terns of several kinds have been used, all with some success, in destroying the moth. — 
[Dr. E. H Anderson, Madison. 

The people of this coun y do not dread the cotton-worm, and but little has been done 
for its [trevention or destruction. — [J. Culbertson, Raukin. 

I think fires, where general, aie most satisfactory. — [Daniel Cohen, Wilkinson. 

Nothing very satisfactory. — [D. L. Phares, Wilkinson. 

Small fires at night destroy great numbers ; do not know anything about the molas- 
ses, «Jtc. — [W. Spillman, Clarke. 

Every elfori to destroy them has been a failure. The greatest destruction of the 
moth has been accomplished by placing lights in the fields at night ; the moth flies 
into it and is destroyed ; tires are far tlie least expensive, and as much better than 
poison as they are cheaper. — [George V. Webb, Amite. 

Perfectly satisfactory to my mind when fully carried out. I saved my crop in 1874 
by a system of lanterns, pans, coal-tar, molasses and vinegar. I used a post six feet 
high and a Rheet-iron pan, eighteen by twelve, on top of post, a block of wood in the 
pan for the lantern to set in; pan tilled with molasses or coal-tar : light the lantern 



464 REPORT UPON COTTON INSECTS. 

and you will catch every moth on an acre. Molasses and vinegar attracts better than 
anything nsed in conjunction with a bright lantern ; one-half of a star candle that 
■will burn three hours is sufficient, as the moth iiies early alter dark. Did not use any- 
thing this year; yellow fever absorbed everything here. — [J. W. Burch, Jetierson. 

NORTH CAROLINA. 

The worms are so few and rare in this section that no effort has been made to de- 
stroy them. — [F. I. Smith, Halifax. 
No remedies have ever been used in this county. — [J. Evans, Cumberland. 

SOUTH CAROLINA. 

I believe one of these plans as good as another, and all of them useless. — [James W. 
Grace, Colleton. 

We cannot give you any information as to remedies or methods of destruction. The 
worm has never threatened us with such damage as has beeu experienced in more 
southern localities, and nearer the coast, and have, therefore, never had to resort to 
anything of the kind. I have not heard of any farmer iu this county who ever tried 
any experiment. When one had a liock of turkeys vr many fowls, lie would turn them 
on the cotton infested with the worm with good results. — [James C. Brown, Barnwell. 

TENNESSEE. 

This is another field in which the entomologist can, as I believe, be profitably and 
successfully employed. Success will, perhaps, bo achieved when the entomologist 
combines as his assistant practical knowledge so common among planters and scientific 
attainments in entomology, or, rather, natural history. Poisoned sugar, as ordinarily 
used, is of little value ; mnlasses and vinegar are useless ; fires, unless used by all plant- 
ers, decidedly hurtful. — [A. W. Hunt, Perry. 

TEXAS. 

I know nothing of poisoning, as it has never been tried in this locality. Fires have 
been tried, but without any effect. One man in this neighborhood tried latn|)s sur- 
rounded by small tiu plates, smeared with molasses. If he ever caught any 1 never 
beard of it. Many people went to see the result of his experiments, but nothing came 
of it. Half an hour alter sunset tiie moth may be seen flitting about among the cotton- 
plants, scarcely ever seen above the tojis of the plants, depositing eggs on the under 
side of the leaves mostly ; if not disturbed, never appearing during the day. — [J. M. 
Glascoe, Upshur. 

None have been used except fires. — [H. J. H. Brensing, Bowie. 

So far no remedies of any kind have been applietl. — [A. Schroeter, Burnet. 

A field upon which the worms hail made their appe.irauce was promptly sprinkled 
"with the arsenite of soda, prepared at Lodi, New Jersey, and not a worm was to be found 
and the i)lant itself had sustained no pcreei)tible in.j jry. It was the only crop in the 
neighborhood that was not eaten up. — [William J. Jones, Galveston. 

1 know of none tried. — [W. Barnes, Cheroki^e. 

I know one man that built large fires around his field and destroyed a great many ; 
this is the only remedy tried within my knowledge. — [P. S. Watts, Hardin. 

Molasses, with burning lami»s, has proved most satisiactory. Unless everybody uses 
this remedy it is hurtful to tliose who do, as it attracts the moths of the unillumiuated 
fields. — [R. Wipprecht, Comal. 

Poisoned sugar, molasses, and vinegar, used in day-time, and fires or lights placed 
so that the moth falls into a vessel of gummy matter, have been found eflicacious for 
their destruction, but has never prove I wholly so, piobably owing to the fact that 
they are not used early enough or not long enough. — [8. B. Tackaberry, Polk. 

Remedies used here have beeu Paris gnen mixed with flour, put on by means of a 
sifter when the cotton is damp. Arsenic dissolved iu water is also used; both have 
proved efiectual. The arsenic has proved the most, satisfactory and clieapest ; judg- 
ment has to be exercised or the cotton will be killed with the worm. — [O. H. P. Gar- 
rett, Washington. 

Nothing attempted in that way in this section.— [A. Underwood, Brazoria. 

I have tried making lights all over the farm, wirh no success. The moth would 
pass about the cotton seeming not to see it till disturbed. I do not think anything 
in the way of destroying moihs will answer, as they will fly long distances (at night) 
from other sections of the State, and fill your field with eggs in a couple of days. 
Have never used sweetened poisons. — [W. T. Hill, Walker. 

In 1846 and '47 some planters made pine fires on scaffolds in the field, and had some 
hands catching the worms, and in 18G4 I put 20 hands on three acres to killing the 
worms, but neither had any good results. — [C. B. Richardson, Rusk. 

But few efiorts have been made to destroy the moths, farmers of late years chiefly 
relying on poisoning the worms. However, the idea is gaining foothold that it is 
better to try and destroy the moth, and thereby prevent the appearance of the worm 



APPENDIX II ANSWERS TO CIRCULAE. 465 

in destructive numbers. The best mode seems to be to set up lights in the field above 
or in front of some sweet adhesive substance. Moths appear to be attracted by all 
sweet substances. I have seen them attracted in thousands, after the first brood had 
webbed up, by dried peaches that were dried on boards in the sun, and had been cov- 
ered at night with boards, the moths collecting in thousands under the covering of 
the dry peaches, hundreds being killed by a lamp in a short time. A mouse made a 
nest with the dead moths the same night. — [J. H. Krancher, Austin. 

I am satisfied that this moth does not come here to toil, neither to spin, nor to hunt 
sweet-scented flowers, nor boards nor trees nor any other thing besmeared with sweet- 
ened substances, but to lay its eggs, nothing more, then lie down and die. — [P. S. 
Clarke, Waller. 

Watermelons cut open and spread around with arsenic sprinkled on them will kill 
the moth. — [Natt. Holman, Fayette. 

I have tried to allure the moth with fire, both lamp and torch, also molasses and 
vinegar, with but little efiect. The only one that promises to be a safe remedy is a 
preparation of arsenic manufactured at Galveston, Tex. It is applied by sprinkling 
liquid like Paris green, known as the "Texas cotton-worm destroyer." — [J. W. Jack- 
son, Titus. 

I used with full effect the arsenite of soda combined with a little vinegar and mo- 
lasses. I did not use any intoxicating liquids as I was fully satisfied that every moth 
imbibing the poisoned sweet was instantly killed, none of the dead aijpearing at any 
appreciable distance from the pans. — [William J. Jones, Galveston. 



Question 7 a. — Are tlie motJis most attracted to siveetened substances when smeared onto 
trees, hoards, ^c, or when contained in vessels in or near which lamps may he lighted f 

ALABAMA. 

Have always noticed that while making molasses at night, unless some protection 
is used, the evaporator will be frequently choked with the moth, either attracted by 
the odor of the cooking sirup or by the light, or both. — [R. F. Henry, Pickens. 

Attracted to vessels when near lights, and great numbers are destroyed by the 
lights. — [John D. Johnson, Sumter. 

I think it would make but little difference wherever it was placed. — [R. W. Russell, 
Lowndes. 

I do not know that they are attracted by saccharine substances. — [R. S. Williams, 
Montgomery. 

They are often seen in great numbers under apple trees where the apples have fallen 
and were rotting on the ground; also under peach trees where the peaches have 
fallen.— [H. Tutwiler, Hale. 

On trees, boards, »&c. — [J. A. Calaway, Montgomery. 

Of the attraction of molasses or any other preparation on trees where lamps or fires 
are lighted we have no experience. They are all certainly too slow for this emergency, 
when the Lord Almighty only knows how many eggs one moth will lay. — [Dr. John 
Peurifoy, Montgomery. 

I do not know ; lights do not attract them much, though sometimes one may be seen 
flying around the lamp. — [D. Lee, Lowndes. 

We have tried fires. — [Knox, Minge, Evans, and Hale. 

I know that the wine-press will attract them by thousands in the night two or three 
miles from the cotton-field. I have noticed the tubs left under the press at night 
would have two or three hundred moths in next morning ; no lights near the wine- 
press ; this the 1st of September. Never heard of any one trying any of the articlea 
named. — [P. D. Bowles, Conecuh. 

I have never tried sweetened substances, &c. ; but I see they are readily attracted 
to newly pulled fodder. — [James M. Harrington, Monroe. 

Have no knowledge on this question. We noticed this year that the moths were 
more numerous under the persimmon trees when the fruit was ripe and fallen on the 
ground. They collected in large numbers under the trees, I suppose sucking the sweet 
of the persimmon. — [H. A. Stolenwerck, Perry. 

Never heard of sweetened substances being used. — [H. C. Brown, Wilcox. 

I do not think they are. — [J. C. Matthews, Dale. 

The moth is often found feeding under apple and peach trees, where decayed fruit 
is plentiful ; also later in th/s season under persimmon trees. — [C. M. Howard, Autauga. 

As yet I have not been fortunate in getting a solution by which the moths are readily 
killed. I tried corrosive sublimate and arsenious acid, with rum, molasses, and water 
in various proportions. The solutions I have smeared upon pine trees standing in the 
field, upon little shelves set up at places in the field, and upon a dish placed upon a 
stump. To one pine tree in particular the moths seemed to be attracted mos4 strongly. 

30 CI 



466 REPORT UPON COTTON INSECTS 

The shelves attracted very few comparatively. I have used for poisons, aisenious 
acid, corrosive sublimate, strychnia, and potassium cyanide ; these I have mixed in 
varying proportions with rum and sweetened water. The bait appears attractive 
enough, and I see the moths partaking of it, and yet no dead moths are visible next 
morning. The proportion of rum which I have mixed with these poisons has been 
sometimes one-half, and from that down. Of the poisons named above the potassium 
cyanide is perhaps most easily soluble in the liquids used. Smearing the sweetened 
liquids npon the trunks of trees is, according to my experience, the best way of ex- 
posing them. I have not seen many moths around the dishes set up on shelves and 
on stumps. The arsenions acid, strychnia, and corrosive sublimate I dissolved to sat- 
uration in the sweetened liquids ; sweetened water and vinegar I have also found to 
be one of the most attractive baits. — [E. A. Smith, Tuscaloosa. 

The moths are attracted by light. — [A. D. Edwards, Macon. 

Moths are attracted by nothing at night but the lights, which they go into as soon 
as they can reach it. — [M. W. Hand, Greene. 

I have no experiments to aid me in answering the inquiry. They seem to be greatly 
attracted (that is the fly) to places where we make molasses; will get into the evapo- 
rator, if it contains partially boiled juice, all night in immense quantities unless covered. 
Also get into the molasses troughs. Lights are attractive to the fly. — [Andrew Jay, 
Conecuh. 

Moths are not attracted by any sweet substance or device in this county. — [H. Haw- 
kins, Barbour. 

Failures. I think none of them of the least value. They are impracticable. — [C. C. 
Howard, Autauga. 

Sweetened substances, such as honey-water molasses- water, or, best of all, fruit ' 
juices, placed in closely-sheltered places, in shallow vessels, attracts most. But I hold 
the opinion that the moth only seeks juices after the egg-laying period is past to sup- 
ply the wastes of vitality, i. e., in old age. — [P. T. Graves, Lowndes. 

I do not believe the moth is attracted by any sweetened substances whatever ; if 
they get to it I think it is accidental. — [J. N. Gilmore, Sumter. 

ARKANSAS. 

Molasses and other sticky substances will catch many moths when near lamps or 
candles, but not otherwise.— [E. T. Dale, Miller. 
There has been nothing of the kind tried here.— [T. S. Edwards, Pope. 

FLORIDA. 

They are not attracted by any bait of any kind, nor has any known benefit been at- 
tained by the use of any lights. — [R. Gamble, Leon. 

GEORGIA. 

I cannot say I think they are drawn there by the light of the lamps. — [M. Kemp, 
Marion. 

We have never tried sweetened substances. — [Timothy Fussell, Coffee. 

They have no disposition for anything of the kind. They appear to recognize the 
fact that they have a mission to fill, and they go forward and do it. — [S. P. Odom, 
Dooly. 

Never tested ; can't say ; no attention is paid until the worm is on us ; then they go 
to work to destroy it. They live on careless, hoping it will appear no more. — [William 
A. Harris, Worth. 

LOUISIANA. 

I have no knowledge of moths being fond of sugar, molasses, or other sweets, and 
was not aware of any such plan of catching them.— [D. M. Hamilton, West Feliciana. 

I have never known the moths to be attracted to anything but lights.— [Dr. I. U. 
Ball, West Feliciana. 

I do not think they eat anything sweet. They vrill fly around a light at night, as 
any other fly will do.— [John A. Maryman, East Feliciana. 

MISSISSIPPI. 

Lamps lighted are a greater attraction to the moths than sweetened water. — [C. F. 
Sherriod, Lowndes. 

Nothing known.— [D. L. Phares, Wilkinson. 

I always thought that the moth was attracted by the light, and not by any sweet- 
ened substances near it. — [John C. Russell, Madison. 

The light reflected from any fluid placed near a lamp or light, or even starlight or 
moonlight, would prove more attractive than if spread on boards, trees, &c. The light 
seems to be the attraction. — [Dr. E. H. Anderson, Madison. 

I do not believe that sweetened substances will attract them at all. — [George V. 
Webb, Amite. 



APPENDIX II ANSWERS TO CIRCULAR. 467 

NOllTH CAROLINA. 

Never has been tried. — [F. I. Smith, Halifax. 

SOUTH CAROLINA. 

As all moths, these are attracted by a light to a certain extent, but we do not believe 
that any kind of food will be found to attract theui at all. When they are found around 
vessels or boards or trees smeared with molasses or vinegar, we believe their presence 
is simply a coincidence and not the result of a search for food. — [James W. Grace, 
Colleton. 

TENNESSEE. 

Perhaps the moths are most attracted to sweetened substances when near lights ; 
but, as I have said, the lights are harmful. — [A. W. Hunt, M. D., Perry. 

TEXAS. 

The moths are attracted most by lamps in the night, set on posts or stumps. Place 
the lamps or lights, as may be, in a flat tin pan with some kerosene oil in it, enough 
to destroy the moth ; by that means it can be caught. Smearing sweet substances on 
trees, boards, &c., will not effect the destruction of the moth much. — [O. H. P. Garret, 
Claiborne. 

When in vessels near lighted lamps.— [R. Wipprecht, Comal. 

I have found halves of melons left on tables all night covered with the moth in the 
morning, but not killed. — [W. Barnes, Cherokee. 

Are mostly attracted by fruit, such as peaches, figs, and melons. — [T. B. Tackaberry, 
Polk, 

The lamp-light business is a failure. That is the plan I adopted ten years ago and 
abandoned it.— [W. T. Hill, Walker. 

Many moths have been caught with molasses and water, but it did not appear to 
diminish their numbers. — [C. B. Richardson, Rusk. 

Yes. I have now, in my cotton, lamps placed with water and kerosene oil in them, 
for the purpose of catching the moth, and would state that I am succeeding finely, 
catching thousands, &c. — [Natt Holman, Fayette. 

In vessels near where lamiJS or torches have been lighted. — [J. W. Jackson, Titus. 

I have j)laced the poisoned sweets with lighted lamps in many localities in my cot- 
ton fields, and have found dead millers in the pans and around the lamps, but not in 
any great numbers ; none were found about the boards smeared with poisoned molas- 
ses. — [William J. Jones, Galveston. 



Question 7 h. — Are any flowers Inoivn to he attractive to tlie moth? If so, specify tJicm, 
and tlieir season of hlooming. 

ALABAMA. 

I am not aware that any flower is especially attractive to the moth except the pea 
flower. I have seen the moth in the pea-field (the speckled cow-pea), but never saw 
it eating or sucking the flower. — [H. Hawkins, Barbour. 

I think the blossom of the pea. The moths go much in adjoining corn-fields. — [C. C. 
Howard, Autauga. 

I think not. — [P. T. Graves, Lowndes. 

I don't think the fly cares for any flower. — [R. W. Russell, Lowndes. 

I know of no flower that has any attraction for the moth. — [J. N. Gilmore, Sum- 
ter. 

i know of none. — [R. S. Williams, Montgomery. 

We do not know. — [J. A. Calaway, Montgomery. 

I have often seen them about the field-pea as if sucking something from the upper 
end of the stem to which the pea is attached, but I have never seen them notice the 
bloom or any other flower. The cotton-moth is very destructive to fruit of all kinds. 
We cannot have any peaches, grapes, apples, or figs late in the season on account of 
them; they suck the juice and ruin the fruit. — [D. Lee, Lowndes. 

No. — [M. W. Hand, Greene. 

No. — [A. D. Edwards, Macon. 

I know of none. — [C. M. Howard, Autauga, 

None. — [H. C. Brown, Wilcox, 

Don't know. — [P. D. Bowles, Conecuh. 

None that I know of. — [J. C. Matthews, Dale, 

Do not know of any. — [H. A. Stolenwerck, Perry, 

Have never known any. — [James M. Harrington, Monroe. 

There are no flowers known tome which are attractive to the moth. — [Andrew Jay, 
Conecuh, 



468 REPORT UPON COTTON INSECTS. 

ARKANSAS. 

Don't know any. — [Norborne Young, Colnmbia 
I do not know of any. — [E. T. Dale, Miller. 

FLORIDA. 

I have frequently seen them feed on the cotton flower. — [ Jolin Bradford, Leon. 
It is not known that the moth is attracted by any flower other than cotton. — [R. 
Gamble, Leon. 

GEORGIA. 

Do not think flowers attract the moths.— [Timothy Fussell, Ccflfee. 

None.— [S. P. Odom, Dooly. 

No flowers attract them. — [E. M. Thompson, Jackson. 

None that'I know of. — [M. Kemp, Marion. 

Do not know of any. — [William A. Harris, Worth. 

I have been satisfied, from testing, the secretion from the glands on midrib of leaf is 
sweet. I find that the honey-bee has discovered the same. They seem to habitually 
neglect the cotton-bloom and go to the glands at base of open bloom and of young 
bolls from which the blooms have just fallen, and occasionally the glands of unopened 
blooms. The older bolls they neglect. Two or three species of wasps do the same. 
This seems to indicate that the glands of the blooms and of younger bolls are most 
active in secreting, and it may be that so soon as the cotton-plant blossoms iu spring 
it is capable of furnishing sustenance to the Aletia moth. — [J. E. Willett, Macon. 

LOUISIANA. 

I am not aware of the moth being attracted by any kind of blossom or flower. — [D. 
M. Hamilton, West Feliciana. 

I know of none. — [Dr. I. U. Ball, West Feliciana. 

There is no flower known to be attractive to the moth ; not even the cotton-flower. — 
£John A. Marymau, East Feliciana. 

MISSISSIPPI. 

I have never seen one on a flower ; have seen large quantities on pea vines ; they did 
not seem to feed, only resorted there for cover during the day. — [C. F. Sherriod, Lowndes. 
No. — [C. Welch, Covington. 
None. — [Dr. E. H. Anderson, Madison. 

No flowers are known to attract the moth. — [John C. Russell, Madison 
None. — [J. W. Burch, Jefierson. 
None. — [George V. Webb, Amite. 

SOUTH CAROLINA. 

None. — [James W. Grace, Colleton. 

TENNESSEE. 

I have no knowledge of the attractiveness of any flower to the moth, though doubt- 
less if due diligence was used some flower might be found which possesses attractive 
qualities to the moth. — [A. W. Hunt, M. D., Perry. 

TEXAS. 

I do not think any flower attracts the moth ; it is bent on the cotton-leaf for a suit- 
able place to deposit its eggs, while the bloom has no attraction. — [O. H. P. Garrett, 
W^ashington. 

None known. — [W. Barnes, Cherokee. 

No. — [R. Wipprecht. 

None.— [P. S. Watts, Hardin. 

If they feed on any flower it must be that of cotton. I think they never quit the 
field unless carried by winds. — [J. M. Glasco, Upshur. 

Have never known them to feed from any flowers. They are fond of fruit, and will 
collect at night in great numbers on dried peaches. They attack very ripe apples and 
peaches on tbe trees, and entirely ruin some of the fruit. — [ W. T. Hill, Walker. 

None. — [A. Underwood. Brazoria. 

So far I have not noticed them on any other but cotton-blooms. Some years ago, 
when Paris green was first employed for the destruction of the worm, large numbers 
of moths were noticed after the first brood ; but few worms appeared at the second 
brood, however, the inference being that large numbers of the moths had been killed 
by poisoned cotton-flowers, having been found dead. — [J. H. Krancher, Austin. 

None that I ever heard of. — [C. B. Richardson, Rusk. 

None that I have ever heard of. — [Natt Holman, Fayette. 

In addition to the cotton-plant and cow-pea there is the sweet-potato vine (green 



APPENDIX II ANSWERS TO CIRCULAE. 469 

till heavy frost), besides the honey-dew to he found upon the leaves of many forest 
trees throughout the entire cotton-belt. — [William J. Jones, Galveston. 

I have noticed the moth closely, and have never seen them attracted by any flow- 
ers. — [J. W. Jackson, Titus. 



Question 7c. — Jlliat do you know of your own ohservatmi of the influence of jute grown 

near or tviih the cotton ? 

ALABAMA. 

I am unacquainted entirely with the growth of jute. While I have never experi- 
mented with a vine to any general benefit, yet, from casual observation, I think cot- 
ton planted with corn, say in alternate rows, would be more likely to escape being 
destroyed. This idea grew out of seeing some stalks of cotton come up from cotton- 
seed used for manuring corn and allowed to mature, which retained its leaves and 
made late cotton when the fields around were eaten clean. — [Andrew Jay, Conecuh. 

I know nothing ; never saw it growing. — [I. F. Culver, Bullock. 

Nothing. — [R. F. Henry, Pickens. 

We do not suppose that there is a stalk of jute in this beat. In fact it is a plant we 
never saw, and know nothing about it. — [Dr. John Peurifoy, Montgomery. 

Nothing. — [J. A. Callaway, Montgomery. 

No jute grown in this county. — [P. D. Bowles, Conecuh. 

It has never been tried that I know of — [J. C. Matthews, Dale. 

Nothing. — [C. M. Howard, Autauga. 

Nothing. — [I. D. Driesbach, Baldwin. 

Nothing. — [James M. Harrington, Monroe. 

No jute grown here. — [H. C. Brown, Wilcox. 

Have no knowledge about it. — [H. A. Stolenwerck, Perry. 

Jute is not cultivated here. — [R. H. Powell, Bullock. 

None; no jute ever grown in this locality. — [Knox, Minge, and Evans, Hale. 

I never saw jute grown with or near cotton. — [D. Lee, Lowudes. 

Nothing. — [M. W. Hand, Greene. 

Nothing. — [H. Hawkins, Barbour. 

Nothing. — [C. C. Howard, Autauga. 

No jute grown in the county. — [T. S. Edwards, Macon. 

I do not know. — [E. T. Dale, Millers. , 

No jute growing here. — [Norborne Young, Columbia. 

I have grown cotton and jute side by side with no good results. To test the matter 
I one year planted alternate rows of cotton and jute. The caterpillars eat the cotton 
clean and wchbed up on the jute. — [John Bradford, Leon. 

No jute ever grown here. — [John B. Carrin, Taylor. 

GEORGIA. 

Nothing. — [M. Kemp, Marion. 

None whatever. — [S. P. Odom, Dooly. 

Nothing known of jute. — [E. M. Thompson, Jackson. 

Nothing. — [D. P. Luke, Berrien. 

Never saw a stock of jute in my life. — [William A. Harris, Worth. 

Nothing. — [Timothy FusseU, Coflee. 

LOUISIANA. 

Nothing. — [H, B. Shaw, Concordia. 

Have no personal knowledge as to the planting of jute near cotton to keep away the 
army worm. Have heard of something of the kind, but placed no confidence in what 
was said about it. Have also heard something about the castor-oil plant and James- 
town weed having the same effect when planted about or through the cotton-fields. — 
[D. M. Hamilton, West Feliciana. 

I know nothing about the jute growing among the cotton. — [John A. Maryman, 
East Feliciana. 

I have no knowledge. — [Dr. I. U. Ball, West Feliciana. 

MISSISSIPPI. 

In 1877 I planted jute within 30 feet of a cotton-field. Worms did not eat up the 
cotton until late in the season, but I can't say it was the jute that delayed them ; 
hardly think it was, as they would have as little regard tor jute as for any other 
weed. — [J. W. Burch, Jefferson. 

Nothing. — [Dr. E. H. Anderson, Madison. 

I know of none. — [William T. Lewis, Winston. 

Nothing. — [C. Welch, Covington. 



470 EEPORT UPON COTTON INSECTS 

Never have seen jnte near cotton and cannot say. — [John C. Russell, Madison. 

Nothing. — [D.L . Phares, Wilkinson. 

It has as yet not been tried here. — [George V. Webb, Amite. 

SOUTH CAROLINA. 

We have never planted or seen planted the jute, so of our own knowledge know 
nothing of its effects; although we have seen an essay wherein it was stated that a 
field around which a row of jute was planted in Texas was not touched by the worm 
during a destructive worm season and when the cotton all around was destroyed. — 
[James W. Grace, Colleton. 

TENNESSEE. 

I know nothing of the influence of jute grown in the vicinity of the cotton-field. — 
[A. W. Hunt. M. D., Perry. 

TEXAS. 

Several years ago the Agricultural Department furnished packages of jute-seed to 
farmers with the request they would plant with a view to its effect on the cotton- 
worm ; but few tried it, and they expressed the opinion that if a sutficient breadth be 
planted it might arrest their progress while traveling. — [J. M. Glasco, Upshur. 

Jute has never been grown here.— [Samuel Davis, Hunt. 

Nothing. I planted jute near a cotton-field, but only a few seed came up. — [P. S. 
Watts, Hardin. 

Have never tried the effect of jute grown near cotton. — [O. H. P. Garrett, Wash- 
ington. 

Nothing.— [S. B. Tackaberry, Polk. 

Nothing. — [W. Barnes, Cherokee. 

Nothing.— [P. S. Clarke, Waller. 

No influence. — [R. Wipprecht, Comal. 

Have no experience. It is said though that hemp planted around cotton-fields will 
to some extent prevent the approach ot the moth ; jute being an analogous i)lant may 
have the same effect. — [J. H. Krancher, Austin. 

Know nothing of the influences of jute, but have seen many other similar notions 
tried and fail.— [W. T. Hill, Walker. 

Never heard of any being planted. — [C. B. Richardson, Rusk. 

None whatever. — [J. W. Jackson, Titus. 

Never have grown any or seen any growing.— [Natt. Holman, Fayette. 



Question 7d. — Has any effort hcen made to destroy the moth in ite winter-quarters f 

ALABAMA. 

No. — [R. F. Henry, Pickens. 

None.— [I. F. Culver, Bullock. 

None. — [R. S. Williams, Montgomery. 

I do not believe the moth has any " winter-quarters." Have never seen a moth in 
■winter. — [J. N. Gilmore, Sumter. 

None. The opinion is held, I think correctly, that the moths that spend the winter 
fail to find cotton-plants upon which to deposit their eggs, and consequently fail to 
propagate, so any effort to destroy them would be wasted. — [P. T. Graves, Lowndes. 

No. — [J. A. Calaway, Montgomery. 

The moth's winter-quarters are in shuck-pens, fodder-lofts, attics, hollow trees, un- 
der pine bark, in rotten wood, &c., perfectly inaccessible to man. — [Dr. John Peurifoy, 
Montgomery. 

Not that I am aware of. — [J. D. Driesbach, Baldwin. 

None. — [Knox, Mingo, and Evans, Macon. 

None. — [James M. Harrington, Monroe. 

None.— [R. H. Powell, Bullock. 

None that I know of. — [II. A. Stolenwerck, Perry. 

None. — [C. M. Howard, Autauga. 

None. — [M. W. Hand, Greene. 

No effort made. — [H. C. Brown, Wilcox. 

None. — [J. W. Du Bose, Montgomery. 

Think not ; never heard of any one attempting to do so in winter. — [P. D. Bowles, 
Conecuh. 

None. — [J. C. Matthews, Dale. 

Not within ray knowledge. — [C. C. Howard, Autauga. 

I know of no effort to destroy the moth. — [R. W. Russell, Lowndes. 

I have never heard of any. Any such efiort would be altogether impracticable. 



APPENDIX II — ANSWERS TO CIRCULAR. 471 

The moths are too much scattered. Thoy lie up in the roofs of all the houses ou the 
farm ; under the boards or shingles; under the loose bark of dead trees, either on the 
farm or in the woods. I guess that I shall winter a dozen or two in my dwelling- 
house next winter. There are more than that number in my house to-day, and as they 
are daily emerging from the chrysalides the number I suppose will increase. The 
trouble would be to get at them. — [D. Lee, Lowndes. 

None that I know of. This would be hard to do. Pine timber in our clearings after 
the sap turns is very valuable for rails and posts, and would be entirely destroyed by 
tires in destroying the moths in fields near. — [H. Hawkins, Barbour. 

ARKANSAS. 

The burning of all cotton and corn stalks or other trash found on the ground has 
shown that ground so treated was least attacked.— [E. T. Dale, Miller. 
None. — [Norborne Young, Columbia. 
None that I know of. — [T. S. Edwards, Pope. 

FLORIDA. 

None. — [John Bradford, Leon. 

These wiuter-quarters are not supposed to be known. — [Robert Gamble, Leon. 

GEORGIA* 

No effort made to destroy the moth in winter-quarters.— [E. M. Thompson, Jackson. 

None. — [D. P. Luke, Berrien. 

Never here. — [William A. Harris, Worth. 

I do not believe the moth has any " winter-quarters," but remains in the chrysalis 
during the winter. — [William Jones, Clarke. 

No effort has been made to destroy the moth in winter-quarters.— [Timothy Fussell, 
Coffee. 

Nothing in this locality. — [M. Kemp, Marion. 

It is not here in its winter-quarters. — [S. P. Odom, Dooly. , 

LOUISIANA- 

No. — [H. B. Shaw, Concordia. 

No effort has been made to destroy the moth in its winter-quarters that I know of. — 
[John A. Maryman, East Feliciana. 
I know of none. — [Dr. I. U. Ball, West Feliciana. 

MISSISSIPPI. 

None. Its winter-quarters are not known.— [George V. Webb, Amite. 
It never having been found where the moth winters, no efforts have been made to 
destroy them there. — [John C Russel, Madison. 
No effort made. — [Dr. E. H. Anderson, Madison. 
No.— [J. W. Burch, Jefferson. 
No. — [D. L. Phares, Wilkinson. 
No. — [C. Welch, Covington. 
None that I know of. — [William S. Lewis, Winston 

TENNESSEE. 

No effort has been made to destroy the moth in its winter-quarters, nor do I think 
any such effort would be likely to prove very successful.— [A. W. Hunt, Perry. 

NORTH CAROLINA. 

None.— [F. I. Smith, Halifax. 

TEXAS. 

None.— [S. B. Tackaberry, Polk. 

No. — [W. Barnes, Cherokee. 

Nothing has been done to destroy them ; it is very doubtful about their remaining 
here all winter. From the coast counties a more complete statement may be obtained. — 
[J. M. Glasco, Upshur. 

None.— [P. S. Watts, Hardin. 

Has never been found there to ray knowledge. — [P. S. Clarke, Waller. 

Burning the old cotton-stalks. — [H. J. H. Brensing, Bowie. 

No. — [R. Wipprecht. 

None that I know of. — [O. H. P. Garret, Washington. 

No.— [J. H. Krancher, Austin. 

None have been so fouud. — [C. B. Richardson, Rusk. 

None ; as the thing would be impossible from the great abundance of timber in West- 
ern Texas, and the great distance between farms. — [W. T. Hill, Walker. 

None that I know of. My impression is that its winter-quarters would be as hard 
to find as a remedy to effectually destroy the caterpillar.— [J. W. Jackson, Titus. 

None whatever. — [Natt. Holman, Fayette. 

None. — [A. Underwood^ Brazoria. 



472 REPORT UPON COTTON INSECTS 

Question 7 e. — Rave any si/stematic and organized attempts ieen made to gather and destroy 
the chrysalides, or to facilitate their collection and destruclion by furnishing inviting mate- 
rial for the worms to sjyin up in? 

ALABAMA. 

None. The first generation find cotton-leaves enough to web up in. The next are 
forced to find webbing places on grass, weeds, or bushes. To capture the first chrysalis 
is impracticable, for the reason that each plant would have to be overlooked, and to 
attempt to gather up the second generation would be useless when the damage is done. — 
[P. T. Graves, Lowndes. 

I never have known an effort made to destroy the chrysalides in any way whatever. — 
[J. N. Gilmore, Sumter. 

None. — [I. F. Culver, Bullock. 

None. — [R. S. Williams, Montgomery. 

No. — [R. F. Henry, Pickens. 

None. — [J. A. Callaway, Montgomery . 

No attempts have ever been made to destroy the chrysalides. — [Dr. John Peurifoy, 
Montgomery, 

None. — [H. A. Stolenwerck, Perry. 

None. — [Knox, Minge, and Evans, Hale. 

None. — [J. C. Matthews, Dale. 

Not in my knowledge. — [J. AV. Du Bose, Montgomery. 

No organized efforts have been made in the destruction inquired about. — [A. D. Ed- 
wards, Macon. 

Nothing of the kind has come under my observation. — [I. D. Driesbach, Baldwin. 

None that I know of. — [James M. Harrington, Monroe. 

None.— [R. H. Powell, Bullock. 

None. — [M. AV. Hand, Greene. 

I have not heard of any. — [D. Lee, Lowndes, 

There has been none. — [H. C. Brown, Wilcox, 

Don't know of any, — [P, D, Bawles, Conecuh, 

None. The worms can be as easily taken, i. c. caught, as the chrysalides, and I doubt 
not that the cotton suits him to a T to spin up in. — [C, C. Howard, Autauga, 

There has been no such effort made to destroy the chrysalis as contained in this 
question. — [R. W. Russell, Lowndes. 

Nothing. — [P. T. Graves, Lowndes. 

None ; and this cannot be accomplished so as to prevent the destruction of the cot- 
ton crop, for the reason that the first, second, and third crops of worms are hatched 
when there is an abundant foliage of cotton, and no contrivance could induce the 
worm to leave the cotton-leaf to spin. It is on the leaf at maturity, and at this point 
commences immediately to spin. After this third crop is out they destroy all the 
leaf and foliage and have nothing in which to spin except weed or grass near the 
field, and not finding this they soon die. Better keep supply out of their way than 
furnish them. — [H. Hawkins, Barbour. 

None, — [J, R, Rogers, Bullock. 

ARKANSAS, 

Nothing. — [Norborne Young, Columbia, 

None.— [E. T. Dale, Miller. ' 

Nothing of the kind has been attempted. — [T. S. Edwards, Pope, 

FLORIDA. 

None, — [John Bradford, Leon, 
None. — [R. Gamble, Leon. 

GEORGIA, 

No organized effort has been made to destroy the chrysalis or to furnish inviting 
material for the worms to spin up in — [T. Fussell, Coffee, 
None in this county. — [D. P, Luke, Berrien, 

Nothing of the kind has ever been done here. — [William A. Harris, Worth. 
Nothing done to destroy them. — [E. M. Thompson, Jackson, 
None in this locality. — [M. Kemp, Marion, 

LOUISIANA, 

None. — [H. B. Shaw, Concordia. 

Have never heard of any attempts to destroy the insect until it is feared that it may 
do injuiy to the growing plants— say during summer and fall, while it is breeding rap- 
idly, and eating rapidly also.— [D. M. Hamilton, West Feliciana. 

It would be useless to try to furnish the worm anything to spin up in, as they are 
too numerous. — [John A. Maryman, East Feliciana, 

I have heard of none.— [Dr. I, U, Ball, West Feliciana, 



APPENDIX II — ANSWERS TO CIRCULAR. 473 

MISSISSIPPI. 

There was some little effort made a few years ago, but was given up in dispair. — [J. 
W. Biirch, Jefferson. 

None that I know of. — [W. T. Lewis, Winston. 

No effort beyond that of winter plowiug. — [Dr. E. H. Anderson, Madison. 

No. — [D. L. Phares, Willvinsou. 

No. — [C. Welch, Covington. 

No efforts to destroy chrysalides, or any material for the worm to spin up in. — [John 
C. Russel, Madison. 

No, and never will be with success ; the numbers are too great. They will only feed 
and spin in cotton while there is a leaf on it. — [George V. Webb, Amite. 

NORTH CAROLINA. 

None.— [F. I. Smith, Halifax. 

SOUTH CAROLINA. 

Experiments various and numerous were made years since upon this subject, and 
continued until experience prdved them all worthless. — [James W. Grace, Colleton. 

TENNESSEE. 

No effort has been made in this State to destroy the chrysalides. — [A. W. Hunt, M. 
D., Perry. 

TEXAS, 

None. — [Natt. Holman, Favette. 

None.— [S. B. Tackaberry, Polk. 

None. — [W. Barnes, Cherokee. 

None.— [P. S. Watts, Hardin. 

No.— [P. S. Clarke, Waller. 

No. — [R. Wipprecht, Comal. 

There have been no organized attempts to destroy the chrysalides or facilitate their 
collection and destruction by furnishing inviling material for the worms to spin up 
in. — [O. H. P. Garrett, Washington. 

None. — [J. H. Krancher, Austin. 

None.— [W. T. Hill, Walkpr. 

None; they only web up on cotton. — [C. B. Richardson, Rusk. 

None. — [A. Underwood, Brazoria. 

There has been nothing of the kind done. — [S. Harbert, Colorado. 

None in this locality; but I believe it can be done to such an extent that the re- 
mainder would be harmless to the jilant. — [J. W. Jackson, Titus. 



Question 7/. — W]uit lias hven done toward destroying the eggs? 

ALABAMA. 

Nothing has ever been done to destroy the eggs, and I presume never will be. They 
are deposited in little squares on the under side of the cotton-leaf. — [H. Hawkins, 
Barbour. 

Nothing. — [J. R. Rogers, Bullock. 

Nothing, as far as I know. It takes a good eye to find them, and I think nothing 
bat gas or spray would reach them. — [C. C. Howard, Autauga. 

Nothing. They are very small, barely visible to the natural eye placed singly, the 
moth rarely ever placing more than one on the under side of the leaf. Other moths 
use the same leaf, and often five or six eggs are found on a leaf. — [P. T. Graves, 
Lowndes. 

Nothing so far as known. — [R. W. Russell, Lowndes. 

Nothing has been done in this section. — [John D. Johnston, Sumter. 

Nothing.— [I. F. Culver, Bullock. 

Nothing. — [R. F. Henry, Pickens. 

I never have known an effort made to destroy the eggs of the moth. — [J. N. Gilmore, 
Sumter. 

Nothing. — [R. S. WiUiams, Montgomery. 

Nothing. — [J. A. Callaway, Montgomery. 

Nothing. A succession of hot, dry days will scorch or dry up the eggs and prevent 
them from hatching. — [J. D. Driesbach, Baldwin. 

Nothing. — [J. M. Du Bose, Montgomery. 

Nothing. — [M. W. Hand, Greene. 

Nothing. — [H. C. Brown, Wilcox. 

Satisfied nothing. — [P. D. Bowles, Conecuh. 



474 EEPORT UPON COTTON INSECTS. 

Nothing. — [J. C. Matthews, Dale. 

Nothing.— [C. M. Howard, Antauga. 

Nothing. — [James M. Harrington, Monroe. 

Nothing.— [H. A. Stolen werck. Perry. 

Nothing; the eggs cannot be destroyed by man. — [D. Lee, Lowndes. 

Nothing.— [Knox, Minge, and Evans, Hale. 

Nothing has been done toward destroying the eggs.— [A. D. Edwards, Macon. 

ARKANSAS. 

Topping the cotton and burning the tops has been tried in a few Instances, bnt not 
sufficiently to mark any decided effect except in the fields so treated.— [E. T. Dale, 
Miller. 

Nothing whateTer.— [T, S. Edwards, Pope. 

Nothing. — [Norborne Young, Columbia. 

FLORIDA. 

Nothing; it strikes mo it would be a difficult job.— [John Bradford, Leon. 

Nothing; the eggs are deposited singly, the moth depositing her burden of some 
hundred and fifty or more eggs over the space of many acres ; they are placed under 
the leaf and are very minute. — [R. Gamble, Leon. 

GEORGIA. 

Nothing in this connty.— [D. P. Luke, Berrien. 
Nothing whatever. — [William A. Harris, Worth. 

Nothing, except to destroy the moths before the eggs are deposited.- [M. Kemp, Ma- 
rion. 

Nothing at all.— [S. P. Odom, Dooley. 

Nothing at all.— [E. M. Thompson, Jackson. 

Nothing has ever been done to destroy the eggs.- [Timothy Fussell, Coffee. 

LOUISIANA. 

Nothing. — [H. B. Shaw, Concordia. 

Nothing has been done toward destroying the eggs.- [John A. Maryman, East Feli- 
ciana. 

Nothing.— [Dr. I. U. Ball, West Feliciana- 

MISSISSIPPI. 

No effort to destroy the egg.— [John C. Russel, Madison. 

Nothing. — Dr. E. II. Anderson, Madison. 

Nothing. — [J. W. Burch, Jefferson, 

Nothing that I know of.— [William T. Lewis, Winston. 

Nothing.— [C. Welch, Covington. 

Nothing.— [D. L. Phares, Wilkinson. 

Nothing.— [George V. Webb, Amite. 

NORTH CAROLINA 

Nothing.— [F. I. Smith, Halifax. 

SOUTH CAROLINA. 

All efforts abandoned as useless. — [James W. Grace, Colleton. 

TENNESSEE. 

Nothing has been done to destroy the eggs, except as an experiment. I have been 
informed of a wonderful success in the prevention of the ravages of the whole class of 
noxious cotton-insects l)y a friend, who on one occasion mulched the seed with a mulch 
whose principal ingredient was milk of sulphur, vulgarly so called, and on another 
occasion of sowing sulphur with the seed.— [A. W. Hunt, M. D., Perry. 

TEXAS. 

Nothing.— [P. S. Clarke, Waller. 

Nothiug.— [R. Wipprecht, Comal. 

Nothing.— [P. S. Watts, Hardin. 

Nothing.— [S. B. Tackaberry, Polk. 

Nothing. — [W. Barnes, Cherokee. 

Nothing has been done to destroy the eggs ; they are too numerous.— [O. H. P. Gar- 
rett, Washington. 

Their destruction seems to be impossible, the number being too immense and dis- 
tributed over too great a space. — [J. H. Krancher, Austin. 

Nothing.— [W. T. Hill, Walker. 



APPENDIX II ANSWEES TO CIRCULAE. 475 

Nothing.— [C. B. Eichardson, Ensk. 

Nothing. — [A. Underwood, Brazoria. 

Nothing. — [S. Harhert, Colorado. 

None. My observation is that they deposit their eggs early in the night, and that 
they batch in a few hours. — [Natt Holman, Fayette. 

ISfone in Ibis locality. The destruction oli the chrysalides would be much easier and 
more effectual. — [J. W. Jackson, Titus. 



Question 7g. — Has anyilung heen found more generally useful and applicahle, or cheaper, 
than the ubc of the I'aris green mixture to destroy the worms? 

ALABAMA. 

Among planters a general doubt prevails as to the value of Paris green. That it 
will kill the worms that eat it is not doubted, but to distribute it on all parts of the 
foliage is practically impossible. That, with heavy rains cleaning the leaves for a 
fresh raid of worms, with a renewal of the fight at a time when cotton-picking claims 
all the labor of the farm, has caused many planters to doubt the value of poison. — [P. 
T. Graves, Lowndes. 

Arsenic is cheaper than Paris green, but some think it not so efficacious. I think, 
if dissolved, arsenic will answer all the purposes providing it is not raining too much, 
in which event you will have to use it otherwise, say, in flour or lime or ashes. — [R. 
W. Russell, Lowndes. 

Nothing that I know of. — [John D. Johnston, Sumter. 

Nothing that I have ever used.— [E. S. Williams, Montgomery. 

Nothing.— [J. A. Callaway, Montgomery. 

Some liave used arsenic dissolved in boiling water as cheaper than Paris green. — 
[H. Tutwiler, Hale. 

Molasses. Have used 75 pounds of Paris green on 85 acres of cotton this year, at a 
cost of $42.50, with very little benefit, as the caterpillars eat it up (clean) by the 17th 
of September. I commenced three weeks, or one crop, too late. Destroy the moth in 
time and you are comparatively safe. But all your neighbors must join you in this. 
Yet much good can be accomplished by Paris green if taken in time. — [I. D. Dries- 
bach, Baldwin. 

After considerable experience with Paris green, i. e., six years' use of it, I am dis- 
posed to think cotton does not yield fruit — that is fresh fruit — after that poison is ap- 
plied to it. It is too great a stimulant, and too apt to be absorbed by the growing 
plant. The present cost of Paris green is 20 cents per acre. I have used the " Texas 
worm-destroyer" with all the advantage claimed for Paris green, and with none of its 
bad efltects. This is an arsenious preparation, the cost of which is about 25 to 35 cents 
per acre. — [J. W. Du Bose, Montgomery. 

Nothing has been found superior to Paris green for the destruction of the worm. — 
[A. D. Edwards, Macon. 

Arsenic, which is cheaper than Paris green because it takes so much less. — [J. E. 
Rogers, Bullock. 

I have no experience with Paris green, and can say nothing of it from personal 
knowledge, and certainly know of nothing better, unless it might be found in a gang 
of a hundred or two hundred turkeys turned into a field and confined to the worm-in- 
fested cotton. — [A. Jay, Conecuh. 

Nothing has ever been used in this county more generally useful or applicable than 
the Paris green mixture to destroy worms, and it is far cheaper than would be any 
plans to destroy the eggs or the moth. I have several times used the Paris green and 
other preparations ; found Paris green cheapest and best. — [H. Hawkins, Barbour. 

Paris green or arsenic is used when any attempt is made to destroy them. — [C. C. 
Howard, Autauga. 

Paris green has been used to a very limited extent here, and in several instances it 
has killed the cotton-plant. — [J. N. Gilmore, Sumter. 

No.— [E. F. Henry, Pickens. 

Nothing ; and that is a humbug. If you can poison the atmosphere so as to kill the 
moth and nothing else, then talk about poisoning.- [J. C. Matthews, Dale. 

There has not. — [H. C. Brown, Wilcox. 

Paris green will destroy them when all other remedies fail ; nothing surer or cheaper. 
— [P. D. Bowles, Conecuh. 

Nothing more certain to kill than Paris green. White arsenic is cheaper and very 
sure if the weather is favorable. — [D. Lee, Lowndes. 

Nothing that I know of; and Paris green is a failure as far as practical results are 
concerned.— [M. W. Hand, Greene. 



476 REPORT UPON COTTON INSECTS. 

I think the Texas worm-destroyer better.— [James M. Harrington, Monroe. 

Nothing.— [H. A. Stolenwerck,' Perry. 

Arsenic. — [R. H. Powell, Bullock. 

No. — [Knox, Minge, and Evans, Hale. 

Nothing. — [C. M. Howard, Autauga. 

Mr. Donavau claims to be the first who ever applied Paris green for the destruction 
of the cotton- worms. This was in 1871 or '72, in a separate field of about one acre. 
He applied the poison in the month of August, early in the morning before the dew 
was dried, distributing large quantities of it with the hand over the plants until he 
was satisfied that every leaf was covered. The success was complete, and one a])plica- 
tiou of the poison was sufiicieut to prevent the worms from becoming injurious. — [E. 
A. Schwavz, Eufaula. 

The "Texas anti-worm prescription " is cheaper than Paris green, but it is too weak, 
and one and a half measures to forty gallons of water are required to kill the worms. 
It is, we suppose, arsenic in a soluble state. It is well known here that arsenic, if too 
freely apphed, will injure the cotton, either by itself or in combination with other 
poisonous substances; and the only advantage which the Texas poison has is that ic 
can be applied when the dew is not on the cotton ; and to protect the farm both Roy- 
all's patent and Texas destroyer had better be on hand, and plenty of it. — [Dr. John 
Peurifoy, Montgomery. 

ARKANSAS. 

No kind of poison used here. — [T. S. Edwards, Pope. 

Don't know. Paris green not used here. — [Norborue Young, Columbia. 

FLORIDA. 

Nothing that I have heard of. — [John Bradford, Leon. 
Have heard kerosene oil much vaunted. — [R. Gamble, Leon. 

GEORGIA. 

Paris green and all such poisoning is a humbug. — [S. P. Odom, Dooly. 
Never used. — [K. M. Tliompsou, Jackson. 
We think the lamp is cheaper and safer. — [M. Kemp, Marion. 
No poisons have ever been tried in this county. — [D. P. Luke, Berrien. 
Nothing that I have ever seen or heard of. — [William A. Harris, Worth. 
No experience in Paris-green mixture. — [William Jones, Clarke. 
Neither Paris green nor any other i>oison has ever been used in Coffee County. — 
[Timothy Fussell, Coifee. 

LOUISIANA. 

Nothing. — [XL B. Shaw, Concordia. 

Paris green is the poison which has been always used here to destroy the worms, so 
f ai- as my observation has gone. A preparation called the '' Texas cotton-worm killer," 
or destroyer, has also been extensively adverti.sed, and, perhaps, may have been a good 
deal used in other sections, but I have never seen it tried, personally. I have seen, 
many times, where the Paris green has been used with great success. The most suc- 
cessful plan was by the solution of so many pounds of poison to so many gallons of 
water, and then applied by men riding on horses or mules between the rows of cotton 
and sprinkling the solution well on the plants as they went. It is a slow process, and 
requires time and patience to do it well, but when done as well as it should be, and 
begun and repeated at the i^roper times it destroys the worms utterly and completely. 
In fact, in many places where this mixture or the Texas poison have been often used 
and their mode of application well understood, the cotton-worm has ceased to be the 
dread and terror it once was. There is a plan of applying the Paris green by mixing 
it with flour in certain proportions and sifting it from a box carried on the end of a 
pole, and this carried by a man who rides on horseback over the fields and dusts the 
preparation over the cotton-plants within his route. I never liked this mode of ap- 
plication as well as the first-mentioned. — [D. M. Hamilton, West Feliciana. 

Nothing has been found to destroy them but Paris green. — [John A. Maryman, East 
Feliciana. 

The Paris-green mixture will destroy the cotton-worm, but at the same time will 
destroy the fructification of the cotcon-plant. — [Dr. I. U. Ball, West Feliciana. 

MISSISSIPPI. 

In mid-day, when the sun is very hot, if the cotton^stalk is jarred by a brush being 
passed over it, large quantities of the worm will be dislodged and fall to the ground.^ 
I have seen them dio in five minutes when it was verij warm. Large quantities of 
them could be destroyed by tying brush at intervals on a rope that would drag in be- 
tween the rows. Let it be carried by two men and brush out four rows at a time. — 
[C. F. Sherriod, Lowndes. 

Neither Paris green nor any other poison has been tried to any extent. — [C. Welch, 
Covington. 



APPENDIX II — ANSWEKS TO CIRCULAE. 477 

The prejudice against poisonous remedies is too strong to get any of them introduced 
for experiment. — Dr. E. H. Anderson, Madison. 

Nothing that I have heard of or kuown. — [William T. Lewis, Winston. 

My prelerence is for the pan and lantern invented hy J. G. Garrett, Port Gibson, 
Miss. ; cheaiier and less dangerous. — [J. W. Burch, Jelferson. 

Perhaps not.— [D. L. Phares, Wilkinson. 

My insect-destroyers are more useful. If used in time they attract and catch, with 
or without a light, the caterpillar and boll-worm flies, and prevent the ravages of both 
the caterpillar and boll-worm. — [J. G. G. Garrett, Port Gibson. 

No ; but the Paris green is a dead failure. — [George V. Webb, Amite. 

SOUTH CAKOLLNA. 

Nothing. — [James W. Grace, Colleton. 

TENNESSEE. 

To my knowledge nothing has been found more useful than Paris green to destroy 
the insect in question. I am of opinion, from experiments which I have made, that 
an inestimable benefit would accrue were an organized, general, and energetic battle 
made on this line against the insect enemies of the cotton-plant. I am sure it would 
end in their extermination if its use could be made general for three years. — [A. W. 
Hunt, Perry. 

TEXAS. 

Arsenious acid is cheaper, but the Paris green is the best preparation, to be used 
with flour (a small portion powdered rosin, 25 pounds of flour to one of Paris green). 
Ashes can be used in lieu of flour, or any other article that will act as a vehicle. — [P. 
S. Clarke, Chickasaw. 

Solution of arsenic. — [R. Wipprecht, Comal. 

Nothing. — [S. B. Tackaberry, Polk. 

Nothing. — [W. Barnes, Cherokee. 

Nothing has been brought into use here cheaper than arsenic ; Paris green nest. — 
[O. H. P. Garrett, Washington. 

A great many cheap poisons have been used, but none have given satisfaction. I 
use only Paris green. — [W. T. Hill, Walker. 

Not in this county. — [P. S. Watts, Hardin. 

Arsenic iu solution, mixed at the rate of about a quarter pound to forty gallons of 
water and applied in the form of a shower, either by a fountain pump or similar con- 
trivance, appears to be the cheapest ; but as it has to be applied three, four, or five 
times, it is very tedious. Paris green is the most dangerous to man. — [J. H. Krancher, 
Austin. 

None. — [C. B. Richardson, Rusk. 

Arsenic in liquid form more generally useful, eflFective, cheaper, and more easily ap- 
plied. — [A. Underwood, Brazoria. 

I do not think there is anything cheaper than Paris green that is so sure a remedy. — 
[S. Harbert, Colorado. 

Yes ; the Texas cotton-worm destroyer, put up in Galveston, Tex. — [J. W. .Jackson, 
Titus. 

Arsenic in its raw state, dissolved in boiling water, is better and cheaper; applied 
by being thrown on the plant with pumps. I would state that I saved my crop iu 
1877 by its use. — [Natt. Holman, Fayette. 



Question 7 A. — Have you knotvn of anij injurious effects following tlie vse of iltis j^oison, 
either to the plmit, to man, or to animals? 

ALABAMA. 

Yes; to plant, man, and animals. — [J. A. Callaway, Montgomery. 

The dangers of Paris green are well known here. Stock of all kinds will be killed 
by it, if suftered to eat the cotton poisoned. Any sore or abrasion of the skin will 
inflame, and if applied too freely to the cotton it is sure to parch the leaves and injure 
the plant. — [Dr. John Peurifoy, Montgomery. 

None to man or beast, but some little to cotton where the mixture was too strong; 
one tablespoonful of Paris green to one gallon of water, cotton to be sprinkled at the 
commencement or advent of a new crop of worms. — [I. D. Driesbach, Baldwin. 

I have not. — [H. C. Brown, Wilcox. 

I have injured crops of cotton in this, that after being poisoned with Paris green they 
matured no more fruit. My laborers have been made ill by using it on cotton. I have 
known cows and horses killed by eating the cotton on which it had been deposited. — [J. 
W. Du Bose, Montgomery. 



478 EEPOET UPON COTTON INSECTS. 

Yes ; it will kill anything that gets to the leaf and eats it ; it washes off by rain 
and is carried off into the streams of water, and some stoclc have died from drinking 
the water. — [J. C. Matthews, Dale. 

It will kill the leaves if applied too strong. Have known no serious injury to man 
or animal. — [H. A. Stolen werck. Perry. 

It injures the plant. — [James M. Harrington, Monroe. 

Have heard of cows eating the cotton-leaves after the Paris green had been sprinkled 
upon it, and that it killed some of them. — [P. D. Bowles, Conecuh. 

I have known of none ; but once I observed that the aiiplications of Paris green 
seemingly dwarfed the growth of the common tield-pea, grown upon the same soil the 
following jear. — [C. M. Howard, Autauga. 

Yes; the plant frequently ceases to fruit ; field-hands have been injured sometimes 
severely, and stock killed. — [M. W. Hantl, Greene. 

Yes ; two heavy an application destroys the plant, and if not carefully handled in- 
jurious to man and beast. — [Knox, Minge, and Evans, Hale. 

The plant is injured by too copious an application of Paris green. I have known 
no injuries from its use, to man or animal. — [A. D. Edwards, Macon. 

It stops the plant from bearing, and if too strong kills the plant. I have heard of 
horses and cows having been killed by drinking out of vessels in which poison had 
been mixed. With care there is no danger to man or beast. — [D. Lee, Lowndes. 

If used too freely arsenic will kill the plant. — [R. II. Powell, Bullock. 

I have never known any injuries to man or beast, but when applied too strong it 
hurts or burns the cotton and perhajjs i)revent8 it making any fruit more than to ma- 
ture what it has. — [H. Hawkins, Barbour. 

I saw a lield where Paris green had been applied, and the cotton was as lifeless and 
as unproductive as it possibly would have been if every leaf had been eaten off by the 
worm. — [Andrew Jay, Conecuh. 

Yes ; on all of them. — [J. R. Rogers, Bullock. 

I have heard of local poisoning. — [C. C. Howard, Autauga. 

The young bolls of cotton show the elTects of poison where the atoms fall upon 
them ; some partially rot. Arseuic in solution produces a caustic blight on the leaves 
when not greatly reduced. Some few animals have been killed by eating Paris green 
and flour mixed. Less damge has resulted than was feared. — [P. T. Barnes, Lowndes. 

If too much poison is put on the ])lant it will injure it ; say of arsenic 1 pound to 
the acre in 'M) gallons of water dissolved, will kill the worms and not injure the cotton. 
I have known no injury to man or beast from the use of it. — [R.W. Russell, Lowndes. 

If used injudiciously it will destroy the plant. Have seen the hands from careless- 
ness poisoned with it. Have known it to kill stock.— [R. S. Williams, Montgomery. 

I am satisfied that the poison injures the cotton-plant ; that it appears to close up 
the pores of the leaf, and the cotton stops fruiting. — [I. F. Culver, Bullock. 

None in my experience. — [John D. Johnston, Sumter. 

Injurious to plant when put on too strong, and to men and animals if saturated with 
solution in applying.— [J. H. Smith and J. F. Calhoun, Dallas. 

I have known it to kill the cotton-plant. I never have known it to injure animals 
of any kind. — [J. N. Gilmore, Sumter. 

ARKANSAS. 

Have kuown of the plant being killed.— [E. T. Dale, Miller. 
No.— [T. S. Edwards, Pope. 

FLORIDA. 

None whatever. — [.John Bradford, Leon. 
No. — [R. Gamble, Leon. 

GEORGIA. 

I have heard it said that it is very injurious to cattle.— [S. P. Odom, Dooly. 

Not of my own knowledge. Some of my neighbors say that it destroys the birds that 
will do as much good in destroying the worm as the Paris green.— [M. Kemp, Marion. 

None.— [T. Fussell, Coffee. 

Have heard of injuries to the plant in Dougherty County, but none to man or beast. 
— [D. P. Luke, Berrien. 

Yes ; it has killed some stock that got in cotton-lields where used. — [William A. Har- 
ris, Worth. 

LOUISIANA. 

Yes ; if too strong will kill the plant. If the mules are galled or have old sores, will 
make them very hard to heal ; same with the men who handle it. If any ordinary care 
is taken, no bad effects result from the use of it. — [H. B. Shaw, Concordia. 

Have heard of persons being injured by this poison, but, of course, as it is a poison it 
should be used with proper caution or injury will happen. Have never heard of any 



APPENDIX II ANSWERS TO CIRCULAR. 479 

injury to plants except to the cotton-plant itself when the poison was put on too strong. 
— [D! M. Hamilton, West Feliciana. 

I have never known any person or animal to be injured by the nse of it, but if made 
too strong it will kill the plant. — [John A. Marymau, East Feliciana. 

Paris green, in my experience, has always been used with care, and no injurious ef- 
fects from its use have followed. — [Dr. I. U. Ball, West Feliciana. 

MISSISSIPPI. 

No ; it has been used here to a very limited extent only. — [D. L. Phares, Wilkinson, 

No. — [C. Welch, Covington. 

None. — [William T. Lewis, Winston. 

Paris green has never been tried here. — [C. F. Sherriod, Lowndes. 

Have heard of cattle being killed by eating poisoned leaves. No Paris green used 
in our county. — [J. W. Burch, Jetterson. 

None. — [John C. Russel, Madison. 

When used too freely it kills the leaves ; have heard of no other bad effects. — [W. 
Spillman, Clarke. 

I have had instances of cotton pickers affected with disease similar to "painters' 
colic," but no damage to animals. — [George V. Webb, Amite. 

NORTH CAROLINA. 

Never has been used here. — [F. I. Smith, Halifax. 

SOUTH CAROLINA. 

None, except when carelessly used and inhaled ; have seen the nostrils, mouth, and 
sometimes the throat inflamed and even sore among those who sprinkled it over the 
plant. — [James W. Grace, Colleton. 

TENNESSEE. 

I know of no injurious effects following the use of Paris green to the plant, to man, 
or to animals, but do not doubt that if incautiously used injury might result there- 
from, especially to man.— [A. W. Hunt, M. D., Perry. 

TEXAS. 

A gentleman last year tried Paris green, using it at night ; his face was full of the 
powder. After returning home his condition was such that I told him he was poi- 
soned, when the above was admitted ; there were no serious results. Those assisting 
were not affected. If too strong, it will kill the jilant. — [S. P. Clarke, Waller. 

No. — [W. Barnes, Cherokee. 

Have never heard of any. — [R. Wipprecht, Comal. 

I have known iniurious effects to follow the use of poison on the plant, on myself. — 
[0. H. P. Garrett, Washington. 

No.— [P. S. Watts, Hardin. 

Sometimes destroys the plant. — [S. B. Tackaberry, Polk, 

When Paris green is pure it will not hurt the cotton ; some is adulterated with crude 
arsenic, which makes it burn the cotton. I have known it to make sores on men from 
carelessness in using, but would soon be well again. Have known of no stock being 
injured.— [W. T. Hill, Walker. 

No injurious effects following the application of arsenious solutions to man or ani- 
mal ; of Paris green several cases are known. A strong solution of arsenic or Paris 
green has frequently injured the plant; in some instances the plants have lost all 
their leaves and fruit. — [J. H. Krancher, Austin. 

Death of a few animals that eat the cotton after it was applied. — [Natt Holman, 
Fayette. 

None, to plant or man ; have heard of cattle getting into the fields and being injured 
and some killed by eating the cotton. — [C. B. Richardson, Rusk. 

If used too strong, injures the plant. Seldom injures men or animals externally. — 
[A. Underwood, Brazoria. 

I have used it, and never found any injurious effect upon any thing, either man or 
beast. — [S. Harbert, Colorado. 

No ; nothing serious ; some slight poisoning to man and beast. The people (farmers) 
are afraid of Paris green, and would rather see their crop destroyed than risk using 
it. — [J. W. Jackson, Titus. 



480 EEPORT UPON COTTON INSECTS. 



Question 7i. — State what you, consider the hest and most effective method of destroyitig 

them in your section. 

ALABAJIA. 

It is contended by some farmers here that if the cotton could be topped just at the 
time the eggs were first deposited it would more eifectually destroy them than the 
application of any medicated substances. The moth always deposits its eggs in the 
tender buds of the cotton first. — [J. N. Gilmore, Sumter. 

Cannot answer, as everything has failed that has been tried in this section. I con- 
sider nothing that has been used throughout this section has resulted in good in either 
saving the crop or destroying the pest. — [John D. Johnston, Sumter. 

Paris green carefully applied. — [Dr. John Peurifoy, Montgomery. 

Eoyaxl's receipt. — Formula: 18 pounds fiour, 1 pound Paris green, 1 pound pul- 
verized gum arabic, 2 pounds rosin; cost of material, !§1.25 per acre; application, 50 
cents per acre. — [J. A. Callaway, Montgomery. 

Paris green aud arsenic. — [H. A. Stolen werck, Perry. 

Paris green diluted with water. — [H. C. Brown, Wilcox. 

The best and most eff"octive means to destroy the worm has been the use of Paris 
green, applied in a solution of water, and sprinkled or thrown on the plant by a small 
brush or broom. It is said now that the Texas preparation is the best and most eco- 
nomical way to use Paris green. — [II. Hawkins, I3arbour. 

Arsenic aud Paris green. One man saved seven acres by picking off and killiug when 
they first made their ai)pearance. He went over the ground a number of times. — [J. 
R. Rogers, Bullock. 

Should use arsenic, as being much cheaper. — [C. C. Howard, Autauga. 

The best method of destroying is Paris green. Say 1 i)onnd of Paris green to 30 or 
40 gallons of water, in which you mix 5 or more pounds of llour ; with this sprinkle the 
cotton. But I would prefer arsenic, it being so much cheaper, and will ordinarily an- 
swer all the purposes. — [R. W. Russell, Lowndes. 

Paris green, properly applied. — [R. S. Williams, Montgomery. 

Paris green.— [Knox, Minge, and Evans, Hale. 

We use nothing. — [I. F. Culver, Bullock. 

I consider every method resorted to so far as a failure. Paris green was thought to 
be an effectual remedy, but those who were credulous enough to try it have abandoned 
the use of it as wholly impracticable. — [xM. W. Hand, Greene. 

The application of Paris green mixed with llour and rosin. — [A. D. Edwards, 
Macon. 

Sprinkling poisoned water or flonr on the plant. — [J. W. DuBose, Montgomery. 

Nothing has yet been discovered that is worth a cent. — [J. C. Matthews, Dale. 

Paris green and arsenic mixed with water, and sprinkled over the field regularly, 
while the worms are at work. — [D. Lee, Lowndes. 

Paris green has been used more effectually in this section. One pound of Paris 
green or arsenic to two hundred and fifty or three hundred gallons of water, and dis- 
tributed with a watering-pot. — [R. H. Powell, Bullock. 

The Texas remedy. — [James M. Harrington, Monroe. 

Paris green in solution or powder. — [C. M. Howard, Autauga. 

Paris green is the only effective method of destroying them in this country, and 
most or nearly all farmers have abandoned Paris green aud concluded to let the worm 
do its work unmolested. — [P. D. Bowles, Conecuh. 

I think the best mode to protect your crop from their ravages is to catch the moth 
with molasses. This can be done by placing a tin plate to every half acre of cotton, 
and covering the bottom of the i^late with molasses. The plate should be secured to 
a stake, and: placed above the top of the cotton. This should be done about the 1st 
of July; molasses renewed every other day. Every female moth produces about 
four hundred worms. Destroy the first and second broods of moths, and your chances 
for a good crop are increased a hundred fold. Paris green the next best, but either 
will fail unless the practice is general. — [I. D. Driesbach, Baldwin. 

It is believed early and fast cultivation is one of the best remedies for insect inju- 
ries, and also to keep all the weeds and grass out, and plant to the middle or last of 
July.— [George W. Thagard, Crenshaw. 

AKKAN'SAS. 

I think fires would be the most effective. — [T. S. Edwards, Macon. 

Top the cotton and kill all the worms possible ; then gather all trash, stalks, &c., 
and burn the same each year. Hand-killing is the only effective method I know of. — 
[E. T. Dale, Miller. 

FLORIDA. 

Paris green 1 pound, flour &0 pounds, sprinkled early while the dew is on the cotton 
and applied as soon as the worms appear in force. Three weeks ago I saved a small 



APPENDIX II ANSWERS TO CIRCULAR. 481 

lot of late cotton in this way. The worms have just appeared again, anrl 1 could drive 
them off again (or rather kill them), but think the lot will be benetited by allowing 
them to strip the foliage, which is so dense that all the lower fruit is rottiug. — [J. 
Bradford, Leon. 

Hogs turned into the cotton -fields in August will be the cheapest and best method 
of destroyiug them. — [J. M. McGehee, Santa Rosa. 

Destruction of all undergrowth shrubbery. — [R. Gamble, Leon. 

GEORGIA. 

I think that topping the cotton the last of July or first of August, and taking the 
tops so cut oft' in sacks or baskets out of the field, especially after a spell of cloudy 
weather, as the eggs are deposited in the top buds, where the young worm can have 
the tender foliage to feed on. — [Timothy Fussell, Cofi"ee. 

Have fouud nothing better than Paris green, or a good large flock of tame turkeys. — 
[William A. Harris, Worth. 

Lamps or bonfires built on stumps or scafi'olds in the cotton-field just as dusk sots in. — 
[M. Kemp, Marion. 

I am one of those that view it as an impossibility. — [S. P. Odora, Dooly. 

I know of no possible way of destroying them. — [William Jones, Clarke. 

LOUISIANA. 

Paris green. — [H. B. Shaw, Concordia. 

Paris green is the best and most eftective method of destroying them. — [John A. 
Marymau, East Feliciana. 

SOUTH CAROLINA. 

One pound of Paris green, worth about 25 cents, 20 pounds of flour $1, applied three 
times, making a total of $3.75 per acre. — [James W. Grace, Colleton. 

MISSISSIPPI. 

Fires, vessels of poisoned sirups, and Paris green. The last is mixed, 1 pound with 
30 pounds of wheat flour, and sprinkled on the plant while the leaves are wet with 
dew. If dried before rain falls, it proves eflectual ; if not, the poison is worth little. — 
[D. L. Phares, Wilkinson. 

Light and some sticky substance that will retain them when caught.— [J. W. Burch, 
Jefterson. 

Let it be ascertained when, where, and how this insect hibernates; then the most 
eff"ective method for their destruction ought to be fouud. — [John C. Russell, Madison. 

No means of forming an opinion. — [C. Welch, Covington. 

Quit raising cotton. — [W. Spillman, Clarke. 

Lights in the cotton-fields on stumps and boards elevated to the top of the cotton. — 
[George V. Webb, Amite. 

TENNESSEE. 

Paris green I regard most successful in destroying the insect in question if (jcneraJUj 
vsed. Lighted fires of next importance if f/cncmUi/ used, though, as I have said, harm 
results from its partial use. Of next importance I regard the natural enemies of the 
insect. Except for these enemies the growing of cotton would long since have been 
abandoned. The value of their assistance cannot be overestimated. — [A. W. Hunt, 
M. D., Perry. 

TEXAS. 

If the weather should prove to be dry after the worms make their appearance, the 
Paris green in a solution is best ; but if it continues wet, then the powder is best. 
This is my experience. — [S. Harbert, Colorado. 

Paris green, 1 pound to 25 pounds of flour, and a small portion of rosin. The rains 
will wash oft" the poison, and it will have to be applied after each beating rain ; it 
should be used wherever the worms are first seen. Destroy if iiossible this first crop. — 
[P. S. Clarke, Waller. 

Solution of arsenic. — [R. Wipprecht, Comal. 

Any pieparation of arsenic applied in solution. — [S. B. Tackaberry, Polk. 

There has been no trial of any method. — [W. Barnes, Cherokee. 

A solution of arsenic and water is considered equal to Paris green, if properly ap- 
plied, and by far the most expeditious. — [O. H. P. Garrett, Washington, 

The best and most efliective mode is doubtless the application of Paris green and 
flour — 1 pound of Paris green to 20 or 30 pounds of flour. It is also the most expen- 
sive, but at the same time one application is generally suflicient. People, however, 
seem to discard the extensive use of poisons, and appear inclined to pay more atten- 
tion to the destruction of the moth. — [J. H. Krancher, Austin. 

I poison my cotton altogether with machinery drawn by two horses. The machine 
consists of the fore part of a wagon, with a platform made suflicient to hold a tank 

31 CI 



482 EEPOET UPON COTTON INSECTS. 

of water, containing 120 gallons and 4 pounds of Paris green. This will poison three 
acres. In this tank is placed a 3-inch force-pump for forcing the spray continuously ; 
on the pump place 4 feet of 1-inch hose, with nozzle If inches in diameter, with 50 
small holes in it. One man drives and pumps, and another stands on rear of platform 
and guides the hose back and forth (in a semicircle) over the cotton, carrying seven 
rows in large cotton and nine rows in small cotton about as fast as the horses can walk. 
By having the water hauled to keep the machine at work all day, between 20 and 30 
acres can be poisoned. Two men, without any assistance, can poison 12 or 15 acres per 
day. Should the weather be showery I use 9 pounds Hour to the 120 gallons of water, 
made into starch. This holds the Paris green till frost if there are not too many heavy 
rains. I use no adhesive substance if the weather is dry. — [W. T. Hill, Walker. 

Paris green is considered best by those who have tried it. — [C. B. Richardson, Rusk. 

All attempts, so far, I regard as doubtful experiments, as no general favorable re- 
sults have as yet been demonstrated. — [A. Underwood, Brazoria. 

The cotton caterpillar makes its appearance in this part of the country in July or 
August ; when it appears in July it destroys three-fourths of the crop, but when it 
comes in August it only cuts the crop short about one-third. This was the case before 
the farmers began to use poison ; but now they have a correct compound by the use 
of which they can destroy the caterpillar without danger to themselves or their stock, 
i. e., 1 ounce of arsenic, 2 gallons of molasses to 40 gallons of water for one acre of 
cotton, the molasses only being used to make the poison adhere to the leaves. The 
plau of poisoning was not generally adopted here for some time, from the fact that 
the colored people were afraid of it, but when they witnessed the good effect of its 
use among the white people they tried it, and there can now be found in all their 
cabins the hand-sprinkler and iDoisou ready for use. In proof of the good effect of the 
poison, I will mention one instance. Oue farmer cultivated 40 acres, and sent to mar- 
ket 22 bales averaging 500 pounds lint cotton ijer bale. He had used the poison in 
the way mentioned ; hi.-* neighbor did not use poisons, and from 68 acres only raised 6 
bales, and part of that was " frost " cotton. The land was cultivated in the same way, 
and the seed was the same. — [Samuel H. Waldie, Belmont. 

Destroy the first crop of chrysalides and they will do you no serious damage. — [J. 
W. Jackson, Titus. 

By using poison pretty freely. Some use Paris green and some arsenic. — [Natt. 
Holmau, Fayette. 



Question 7/. — State the cost per acre of protecting a crop hy the best means employed. 

ALABAMA. 

With molasses, about 50 cents per acre ; with Paris green, from 50 cents to $2 per 
acre. — [I. D. Driesbach, Baldwin. 

With Paris green, about $2 per acre.— [H. C. Brown, Wilcox. 

As much or more than the crop is worth. — [M. W. Hand, Greene. 

Oue dollar per acre. — [Knox, Minge, and Evans, Hale. 

Perhaps |13 per acre is about the average cost. — [D. Lee, Lowndes. 

Five dollars per acre. — [James M. Harrington, Monroe. 

Not less than §1 per acre, and this cannot always be done. If the remedy is applied 
and it rains before it dries on the plant, the labor is lost, and should it rain for several 
days, it will be too late to apjily the remedy again ; theu the crop is gone. — [H. Haw- 
kins, Barbour. 

From $1 to $2. Often more injury is done than good by the use of arsenic and Paris 
green. — [J. R. Rogers, Bullock. 

Varies with cost of Paris green from $1 to $2 per acre. I think it impossible to apply 
it so as to kill the worms and not injure to some extent the plants. — [R. S. Williams, 
Montgomery. 

To poison with Paris green it will cost from 35 to 50 cents per acre; with arsenic, 
not more than ten cents per acre. This is for each application. Sometimes we have 
to apply two or three times, depending on showers. — [R. W. Russell, Lowndes. 

The cost of Paris green is $1.25 per acre. — [Dr. John Peurifoy, Montgomery. 

From 25 to 50 cents per acre. — [C. M. Howard, Autauga. 

The cost of the mixture (Paris green, Hour, and rosin) about $2.50 per acre. — [A. 
D. Edwards, Macon. 

Paris green undoubtedly the best and also a sure remedy. Two pounds per acre cost 
$1, and 50 cents for application, making cost per acre $1.50. This in ordinary cotton, 
at night, very rough weed, would, of course, take more water and longer to sprinkle 
it over. The above is the amount applied by Dr. R. A. Lee, and which effectively de- 
stroyed all the worms. — [P. D. Bowles, Conecuh. 

Generally speaking, the poisousforan acre will cost (twoor threeapplicationsallowed) 



APPENDIX II ANSWERS TO CIRCULAR. 483 

about 75 cents. The labor and the flour or other materials are also additional. — [J. W. 
Du Bose, Montgomery. 

From 20 cents to $1 ; much cheaper in solution. — [H. A. Stollenwerck, Perry. 

No such thing as protection. This Paris green is costly, dangerous, and worthless. — 
[J. C. Matthews, Dale. 

The cost would be very small for securing logs to make fires ; in fact so little as "to 
be almost nominal. — [T. S. Edwards, Pope. 

Not more than |5 per acre.— [E. T. Dale, Miller. 

FLORIDA. 

From $1 to fL.'SO per acre. — [John Bradford, Leon. 

GEORGIA. 

I have never tried it, as I have never been visited by the worms but once (in 183fi), 
and then too late to have any damage done. It is my opinion, though, that it could 
be used at a cost of 10 cents per acre. — [M. Kemp, Marion. 

More than the crop is worth. — [S. P. Odom, Dooly. 

Can't say ; arsenic is cheap ; not a great amount ; but of so little moment never tried 
to know. — [William A. Harris, Worth. 

LOUISIANA. 

About $4..50 per acre. — [H. B. Shaw, Concordia. 

I cannot state the cost of the poison by wholesale and the rate required per acre ; 
there are large drug-houses in New Orleans which keep and advertise all these articles 
with prices per quantity and of material per acre. — [D. M. Hamilton, West Feliciana. 

MISSISSIPPI. 

The cost is trifling: one post, six feet, 3 cents; one pan, 50 cents; one lantern, 25 
cents ; one quart of molasses, 10 cents ; one pound star candles, 15 cents ; total, |1.03. 
The articles at wholesale at half rates. The poorest fermenting molasses, at 18 cents 
per gallon, is the best. An acre can be protected for 75 cents. — [J. W. Burch, Jelfer- 
son. 

No means of forming an opinion. — [C. Welcb, Covington. 

Probably $3.— [D. L. Phares, Wilkinson. 

It will cost but little to use the lights, and that is the only protection I believe there 
is, and that is only partial. — [George V. Webb, Amite. 

SOUTH CAROLINA 

Cost, $3.75 per acre. — [James W. Grace, Colleton. 

TENNESSEE. 

Cost per acre of protecting a crop of cotton by the use of Paris green by any of the 
present imperi'ect means of application, $10. Of course this might be reduced by bet- 
ter methods of application to at least $3. Cost of the next best method if generally 
used, lighted fires, $7 per acre or even a little less.— [A. W. Hunt, M. D., Perry. 

TEXAS. 

Not less than $5.— [S. B. Tackaberry, Polk. 

Suppose the cost per acre to protect against worms would be $1 to $1.50, it would have 
to be gone over two or three times.— [O. H. P. Garrett, Washington. 

About $1 per acre.— [P. S. Clark, Waller. 

Cost 25 cents per acre. — [R. Wipprecht, Comal. 

The price varies of course with the market price of material, flour and Paris green 
being cheaper the present year. The cost changes also in proportion to the size of the 
plant ; on a small or low growth the cost is less. On an average 30 pounds of flour 
and 1 or 1^ pounds of Paris green is suflicient for an acre, which at the present time 
would amount to $1.25 to $1.50, besides the cost of applying the same at about 10 cents 
per acre. — [J. H. Krancher, Austin. 

The cost other than labor, with arseiiic, is very little, say 4 cents an acre for each 
application. The iioison is sometimes r^pijlied from three to eight times. Some con- 
tend that in this way they know it to prove a perfect success. — [A. Underwood, Bra- 
zoria. 

Paris green in solution will cost from $1 to $1.50 per acre ; in a powder will cost from 
$1.,50 to $2 per acre. A good force-pump is best for the solution, aud a very fine wire or 
brass sifter for the powder is what I have used, and find them very ettectual. The 
sifter must be finer than the finest flour-sifter. — [S. Harbert, Colorado. 

The preparation of arsenic above referred to can be furnished to farmers at a cost of 
25 cents per acre. — [J. W. Jackson, Titus. 

If the lamp and pan project works, which in my opinion is the best, being less labor, 
less dangerous, aud at a cost of not more than 15 cents per acre.— [Natt Holman, Fay- 
ette. 



484 REPORT UPON COTTON INSECTS. 



OTHER INSECTS. 

ALABAMA. 

From 1825 to 1832 the cotton crop was cut off very much by an infection called 
"Aerot." The bolls which were not matured became diseased and sour and were 
quite offensive. The cause was unknown. Since 1832 and 1833 there has been very 
little complaint of that infection. From 1835 to 1853 or 1854, the lice were a pest to 
the young plants in May and June. They were the worst on light lands. If the plants 
were thiu the lice would badly injure the stand. There were no known means of de- 
stroying them. The best plan was to let the grass grow with the cotton in the drill 
until hot weather, when they would soon disappear. The boll-worm has, I doubt not, 
destroyed more cotton in Alabama than the J letia argiUacca. It is the offspring of 
a moth. There are three kinds. The most numerous is of a dirty, yellowish color, and 
has an owl-shaped head. It deposits its egg or eggs on the upper buds of the plants. 
The larvae are very small at first. They commence in the small forms first and bite them 
a litfle. The sign is not larger than the dot of an i in small type ; but it will destroy 
the form, which dies within five or six days. The bite or sting is poisonous to the 
form or young boll. I have pierced the form with pins more deeply, and it did not 
liurt it at all. As the worm grows it eats into the young bolls, and almost eats out the 
inside. It never eats the leaves. When its task is almost done it bores into a boll 
nearly matured, scoops a bed and changes to a chrysalis. It never spins. — [D. Lee, 
Lowndes. 

We have an insect, which we denominate "rust," that I regard equally and I may 
say more destructive to cotton than the caterpillar. I have no doubt but our igno- 
rance has given it the wrong name. For a few years back (some years worse than 
others) it has infested the crop, and it is very destructive when moist. It seems to 
cause the growth to cease, aud then the stalk and leaves in some instances entirely 
disappear from the ground, save possibly a little of the main stem, and this after the 
cotton is full of squares and small bolls, if not thus disposed of, the leaves seem 
dead, bolls disappear unless matured, in which case they will prematurely open, and 
jiosssibly such stalks will have remaining life enough to put out, and, if not too late, 
niature more or less bolls. To all appearances this insect is what we have been in the 
habit of calling "lice" on cotton when the i^lant is about to be put to a staud; but at 
the stage of attack here the leaves are, of course, grown, and the lice, or whatever it 
be, are as thick as any one could conceive, or as tliick as lice ever were seen on the 
small plant in the spring. When in this condition it is easily observable by the com- 
plexion of the leaf, which becomes darker-colored and has a deposit on the top re- 
sembling what we call honey-dew on forest flowers. When a field gets in this condi- 
tion it is ruined. The caterpillar would be twice welcomed over it. There is but 
little known of it. I think, however, dry seasons are more conducive to its spread, 
and when the lice are found by the hundreds on one leaf ; heavy rains seem to relieve 
the cotton some. — [Andrew .Jay, Conecuh. 

I would mention the " boll worm," which bores into the boll and destroys each lobe 
pierced, and many think the boll- worm is more destructive upon an average than the 
caterpillar, for the reason that it attacks the cotton more or less every year. I have 
counted frequently as many on some stalks as 25 bolls destroyed by the boll-worm. 
In 1847 there was no caterpillar; but the boll-worm, from written memoranda fur- 
nished me by Hon. A. C. Mitchell, of Glenville, Ala. (this county), very nearly destroyed 
the crops, being equally as destructive as the caterpillar the previous year. The 
caterpillar and the boll-worm are the great enemies of cotton. To hasten the ma- 
turity of the crop, hoping to have as much fruit matured as possible before the cater- 
jjillar attacks the cotton crop, has been one of the great incentives to the use of 
commercial fertilizers. — [H. Hawkins, Barbour. 

In 1875 there was an insect made its appearance on the cotton crops in this locality, 
piercing the very smallest squares and destroying them. In 187G it caused the failure 
of the crop ; in 1877 they did no damage ; in 1878 they have damaged the crop, in our 
opinion, more than the caterpillar. The first year or two that it made its appearance 
it was confined to a certain character of land, but in 1S78 it was general. A good many 
planters in this locality dread it as much as they do the caterpillar. — [Knox, Minge, 
and Evans, Hale. 

The boll-worm does also great injury. The same means that will destroy the moth 
of the caterpillar will, I think, destroy the moth of the boll- worm. — [H. A. Stolen- 
werck. Perry. 

The lice in the spring frequently retard the growth of the cotton, and sometimes 
injure or destroy the stand. These aud the boll-worm, which is frequently very in- 
jurious, are the only insects in addition to the cotton caterpillar from which the crop 
suffers. — [A. D. Edwards, Macon. 

The boll- worm destroys the grown or half-grown bolls, but does not feed on the foli- 
age or the stalk. — [J. VV. Du Bose, Montgomery. 



APPENDIX II ANSWERS TO CIRCULAR. 485 

There is a small worm that {generally comes in advance of the regular caterpillar, 
that bores into the forms before the bloom comes out, and it has been niy opinion that 
the damage caused by these is as heavy as any caused by the caterpillar. The said 
worms are called by some farmers the pierce-worm or boll-worm, as they seem to attack 
the bolls while young, causing them to fall off. I have observed as many as one-half 
dozen squares or forms on one stalk that had fallen off from attacks of these worms. — 
[H. C. Brown, Wilcox. 

I will here remark that there are several kinds of moths which wrap up in the cot- 
ton-leaf, and the chrysalis looks not unlike the chrysalis of the genuine cotton eater, or 
Aletla arf/iUacea, but he is ''another fellow" entirely, and of different habits and ap- 
pearance; some of them white and black spotted and various colors. But one kind of 
moth produced the genuine cotton (Iraf/on, and the cotton caterpillar (Aletia argiUdcea) 
and boll-worm are the only insects (lice excepted) which are destructive to the cotton- 
plant in this vicinity or the Southern States. — [I. D. Driesbach, Baldwin. 

Wet weather seems favorable to the boll-worm, which bores into the boll, generally 
does most damage on damp, rich land, and bores the boll while young and tender. 
Bud- worms injure cotton while very young, in cool, wet weather, generally last of 
April and through May. Lice come on cotton in June and first of July ; grasshoiipers 
generally in April and May. — [George W. Thagard, Crenshaw. 

I believe the boll- worm has done a great deal more damage in the aggregate than 
the cotton-worm. The latter stripped my cotton of foliage about the 1st of October 
this year, and I think without any damage. If the cotton was very rank, the leaves 
eaten off at that time would increase the maturing and opening. — [C. C. Howard, 
Autauga. 

ARKANSAS. 

Cot( on has been remarkably healthy, and I have not seen or heard of a " boll- 
worm" at any time in the county, nor any other worm or insect injuring the crop, ex- 
cept a few crops occasionally injured in the spring by " cotton-lice." It is not common 
for boll-worms to be found this far north. South of 34^ is the section where they are 
found, and 32° and 33*^ is their home ; consequently I have no report to make in regard 
to them, as the last I saw was over twenty years ago in Middle Georgia. — [T. W. 
Cochran, Fulton. 

We sometimes have foliage of the plant and the shuck from around the boll eaten 
off by a kind of caterpillar or grass- ivorni. When it preys npou the smaller growth (on 
poor land) it may injure it to some extent ; but it is an advantage to the larger or more 
luxuriant plants, giving better air and sun to the boll, thus insuring better maturity 
and earlier opening. — [Alfred A. Turner, Bradley. 

The other insect most destructive to cotton is the boll- worm, and I have as yet not 
been able to make any observations upon it that are satisfactory or learn from 
others anything reliable. The boll-worms appear every year. The moth or fly de- 
posits an egg inside the young boll by means of an ovipositor. The larva destroys the 
boll which falls off. Parties tell me of different kinds of insects ; some speak of a moth 
and some of a fly. I am inclined to thiuk there are two insects, a fly besides the reg- 
ular boll-worm moth. — [E. T. Dale, Miller. 

The boll- worm is the only insect that has injured the cotton in this county. I am, 
therefore, not prepared to give any information about any other insect. And but for 
the serious damage this year to crops, no one could have noticed the boll-worm ; but if 
we should have a very severe winter and a late cold spring, with no south winds, it may 
be several years before we are troubled with them again. — [T. S. Edwards, Po]3e. 

FLORIDA. 

The cotton-plant has other enemies in Florida. Among them is the red bug. Some- 
times this bug is very injurious. It multiplies very rapidly, will live through the win- 
ter, unless the cold is very severe, and endure until the cotton is ready for it, that is, 
when the bolls are matured and commence to open. It subsists by sucking the seed. 
This action stains and otherwise damages the lint. This bug is more destructive in 
new land, and has not troubled this section seriously within ten or twelve years. Then 
there is what is called the green bug. This insect does its mischief by sucking the limbs 
and branches of the plant, which canses them to die or wither. There is also the black- 
bug, which sucks the bolls before they are opened, and damages the cotton somewhat 
like the red bug. The red bug and black bug will also suck oranges and ruin them. 
Last season I noticed them covered with this black bug. The oranges would fall and 
on examination were found without juice and worthless. I have seen neither of the 
above-mentioned insects this season. — [F. M. Meekin, Alachua. 

The ordinary cut-worm in the spring, and of late years a large hairy worm, injure 
our stands of cotton. Grasshopi^ers, too, are quite a pest sometimes. — [John Bradford, 
Leon. 

GEORGIA. 

There is nothing that is so destructive as the cotton- worm. There are other insects 
that attack cotton in early spring. 1st, a worm called the cut- worm, that cuts it off 



486 REPORT UPON COTTON INSECTS. 

when it is first up, which destroys the plant entirely. I have known fields to have to 
be plowed up and planted over, as tbose worms had destroyed it after a good stand was 
up. They are not apt to last many Aveeks before they pass to something else. They 
are worst in cold, wet springs. The cut-worm hides under about an inch of the loose 
earth on tbe surface of the ground during the day, and only works at night. 2d, we 
have a yellow insect called a cricket that attacks cotton. Some springs, generally in 
the month of May, they will climb up the plant and cut 1 to 3 inches of the top, caus- 
ing the plant to become scrubby and flat. These crickets burrow in the ground to the 
depth of 10 to 15 inches and raise their young at *)he bottom of their burrows ; one 
will have 20 or 30 young, and they carry parts of the tender cotton into their burrows 
for their young to feed on until they are able to gain their own livelihood. — [Timothy 
Fussell, Coffee. 

I have never knowu any very great damage done to the cotton crop in this section 
by any insects until two years ago, when some crops were destroyed by the grasshop- 
per ; and also the ye.ar previous to that, 1874, some jilantations in this part of the coun- 
try were visited by what we call a caterpillar from the woods in the month of Septem- 
ber, which ate all the leaves off of the stocks, but did not injure the fruit ; in fact, it 
was an advantage to the farmer in that respect ; his cotton matured at an earlier pe- 
riod. — [H. W. Hammett, Cobb. 

The aphis or cotton-louse injures the cotton more or less early in the season. In past 
years there was a red bug, which made its appearance in Florida and came as farnorth 
as Mcintosh County, Georgia. This insect did considerable damage. Have heard 
nothing of it lately. — [William Jones, Clarke. 

We have what is called tbe cotton-louse that .attacks the cotton the last of May or 
first of .June and injures it badly. It seems to bo under the leaves and sucks the plant 
until it stops its growth entirely for some time. Hot weather after a while drives it 
away and the plant grows rapidly. Some say that it is not damaged by the louse, but 
I think differently. — [E. M. Thompson, .Jackson. 

I herewitli inclose another insect that is very destructive to cotton, in box m.arked B. 
They are called here the stinging worm, and their stiug is very painful. They web 
up and transform into a different shaped worm. They remain here during winter, 
being so securely housed. — [S. P. Odom, Dooly. 

Among the new insects I have found on the cotton is Citheronia rcfjalis, which feeds on 
the leaves in August and September. It feeds besides on persimmons and sweet gum, 
the hickories and walnuts. Its occurrence on cottou-weeil excites no alarm, to which 
plant it is not as injurious as the double-hooded hyperclunia. — [A. R. Grote, Savannah. 

The only worm that troubles its in this county is the army worm. They only eat the 
leaves and destroy the grass. Millions are now in the cotton-tields and hay-fields, but 
do but little damage to the cotton, and in some instances are a benefit by eating the 
leaves from large rank cotton, causing the sun to shine in and open it where otherwise 
the cotton would rot and not open. — [R. H. Springer, Carroll. 

There is no other worm except the caterpillar that affects the cotton after it has 
been chopped and worked out. The cut-worm very often does serious injury to the 
crop in the way of injuring the stand in spring when the cotton first comes up. — [D. P. 
Luke, Berrien. 

The boll-worm does us more damage, upon the whole, than the cotton-worm. The 
previous entomologist of the Department has the fly, the worm, and the work, accu- 
rately described.— [A. J. Cheves, Macon. 

General inquiry in regard to injury of cotton-plant in my section by small insect, 
and request to send you sample of same, is hereby acknowledged. The injury com- 
menced, as stated in my report, in small patches around trees and stumps on fresh 
land, particularly on lands which had been in continuous cultivation in cotton from 
five to seven years, and about the last week in .July. At first I did not attach much 
importance to it, considering it only small patches of crust, but in two or three weeks 
it spread over a number of acres on my farm, totally ruining the cotton infected. My 
neighbors reported the same thing, in the same way. We had never had anything of 
the kind before. The insect is very small, hardly discernible by the eye without a 
glass. The foliage is the part attacked, which falls oft' and leaves the stalk. Their 
ravages seemed worse during the excessive hot weather ; rather checked up after a 
rain. They lasted from four to five weeks, which was about the last week in August. 
Since then the foliage has grown out, and in some instances a fair crop of half-growu 
fruit. The season is too short, however, for it to mature. — [Henry W. Dean, Floyd. 

LOUISIANA. 

When the cotton-plant is small it is sometimes affected with small insects which we 
call " cotton-lice," and which are found on the under side of the leaves. They cause 
the leaves to draw up and have a puckered apjiearance. This we call " i)Ossum-ears." 
If very numerous they cause the stalks infested to become sickly and sometimes to die. 
Next comes a worm which preys on the cotton after it has grown to befiveorhix inches 
high which we call the " cut-worm." It burrows in the ground at the roots of the 



APPENDIX II ANSWERS TO CIRCULAR. 487 

cotton-plant, and at night cuts the stalk partially or altogether through, causing its 
utter destruction, or making a puny and deformed plant of it. Next we have a worm 
called the "boll-worm" or "bore-worm," which bores a hole into the boll affer it has 
become partially or wholly grown, and causes it to perish altogether or to become hard 
and imperfect and fail to mature and open. Some seasons the cotton-plant is injured 
by grasshoppers, but their injuries are not deemed very great. The cotton-plant some- 
times dies of rust, but, this is considered a disease of the plant caused by something 
present in the soil which poisons the plant, or some elements lacking iu the soil to nour- 
ish the plant properly. — [D. M. Hamilton, West Feliciana. 

MISSISSIPPI. 

The boll-worm is comparatively small, resembling the silk- worm in its early stages. 
Its attacks are made within the calyx and about the base of the boll, which it per- 
forates, and when first forming are tender; it wholly devours it or causes it to drop 
oft'. The light efi'ectually disposes of the moth that deposits this egg. The greasy rot 
is caused by the puncture of the boll by a bug or something. It looks like a greasy 
spot about the size of a three-cent silver piece with a little dot or puncture in the cen- 
ter. The diseased boll when broken open often contains a small variety of iusects some- 
times in the difterent stages of their transformations. This disease first made its ap- 
pearance iu 1810 and lasted for about ten years, occasionally to such an extent as al- 
most to cause the abandonment of the culture of cotton, a contingency prevented by 
the introduction of the Tennessee green seed which was exempt from the disease or 
less aftected than the black seed variety. It reappeared in 1852, more or less then to 
date (see Wailes, 1854). In my opinion cotton is subject to as many ailments as human 
flesh is heir to, but will say this : that it has the most wonderfully recuperative pow- 
ers of any plant I ever saw, and I never despair of a cotton crop until attacked by 
worms, for if you give it half a chance it will come out in this latitude, 31° 45'. — [ J. 
W. Burch, Jeft'erson. 

The boll-worm visited the crops here early in July (during which month we had 
repeated rains), and has continued its ravages up to the present period. The opinion 
of the planters, as generally expressed to me, as well as my own, is that it has done 
more damage this year than the aitomis will do, though many fields are now stripped 
of their leaves by the latter. Many say the worms have cut the crop short one-half, 
others again one-third. The grass-worm appeared likewise in July, but only iu small 
areas, and though found eating the leaf and young boll, to a partial extent, did no 
appreciable damage. The leaf has been covered with the aphis or louse, throughout 
the season, but has done no noticeable damage. I have found occasionally a single 
large worm, resembling, but larger than the boll-worm, stripping individual stalks of 
cotton. No other insects have proved injurious. — [E. II. Anderson, Madison. 

There are two kinds of worms, both very destructive : the boll-worm, which pierces 
the small squares first and is not larger than a pin-point, but grows two or three inches 
long, and eats all the green bolls ; and the leaf-worm, that eats all the leaves, leaving 
nothing but the branches or stems. — [Kenneth Clarke, Chickasaw. 

The boll-worm often destroys many of the growing bolls. But as every stalk pro- 
duces many more forms than it can mature and the bolls attacked are quickly re- 
placed, the damage is not often great. — [J. Culbertson, Rankin. 

Lice are sometimes very injurious in the spring ; and in the season of production the 
" blare- worm," a small worm that perforates the " square" about the time of blooming 
and causes the "square" to stand blared open and to drop ofi^; and the boll- worm, so 
well known and often described, often does great damage. — [C. Welch, Covington. 

The plant-louse, Aphis, is very destructive on the young cotton-plant, especially if 
the weather be cool, so that the plant cannot grow vigorously. I have taken some 
pains to investigate its habits. If you desire it I will furnish you with what I know 
relative to it. Do not know of anything that will counteract its work. It sucks all 
the sap out of the plant. Some suppose the ants eat them. This, however, is not the 
case ; they protect them, and only eat the nectar they discharge. — [ W. Spillman, Clarke. 

NORTH CAKOLINA, 

The common grub, garden, or " colored " worm is very destructive to cotton in this 
locality, especially on light soils highly manured. They cut the young plant oft", 
during the night, an inch or so above the ground, and pull the leaves into the hole 
they burrow in the earth. Plowing the ground during cold weather is the only remedy 
ever used, and not an efticient one at all. The plant is also attacked in early spring iu 
low, damp places, by a small insect or louse known among us as the " blue-bug." It 
sucks the plant just above ground, as many as a dozen being frequently found on one 
plant. Cotton-plants are also troubled in the months of June and July, during damp, 
cool weather, by the plant-louse. They seldom destroy, but do seriously retard the 
growth of the plant. — [J. Evans, Cumberland. 

During the past three seasons the common cabbage-worm or cut-worm has been very 
destructive to young cotton, cutting it down just as it is coming up, injuring and often 



488 REPORT UPON COTTON INSECTS. 

destroying the stand so much as to require replanting. They were very destructive 
the present season and are increasing yearly. They never do any damage on land that 
was lying out or in small grain the previous year. They are specially destructive on 
land that has been planted a series of years in cotton. Possibly they may prove a 
blessing to us, for if they continue to increase they will force us into a rotation of 
crops. All birds and poultry seek and devour them greedily. I think the remedy is 
in the protection of the birds, and ceasing to plant the same land in cotton two years 
in succession. The rapid increase is perhaps to be attributed to the unusually mild 
winters for the last two years. — [John Robinson, Wayne. 

The cut-worm will occasionally cut young cotton when the weather is cool and wet, 
but does very little damage. — [F. I. Smith, Halifax. 

TENNESSEE. 

Though to a very limited extent, some years the boll-worm has been found. "We do 
not like even to guess whether the boll-worm can reproduce itself in this latitude (local- 
ity) or not. But however much our theory may be rejected as to its production, wo 
venture a few words. The moth deposits its egg in the young fruit (or form) Av^beniu 
bloom. The boll grows to maturity, tlie egg is hatched, producing a worm which feeds 
upon the inside of the boll until the appointed time, tbeu cuts its way out, which pro- 
cess completely destroys the boll. Sometimes decay takes place before the worm cuts 
its way out. It is a mistaken idea that the worm cuts into the boll, " IVorms cut their 
way out." There is a moth that stings other young fruit here (wo believe same as cot- 
ton-moth), such as pease, beans, tfec, when in bloom, and perhaps when the fruit is 
gathered and dried for winter the worm liiuls its way out. We only guess why we are 
not troubled with the cotton-worm. Our cotton is not in bloom at the particular time 
the miller lays its eggs. We are aware the above suggestion will be subject to strong 
criticism, nevertheless they are our convictions from experience and observation. — [E. 
W. Cuuuiugham, Henderson. 

There is a kind of lice that injures the cotton here to some small extent. — [L. Dod- 
son, McMinn. 

SOUTH CAROLINA. 

The cotton-worm or cotton-caterpillar is the only insect which has been known to 
damage the plant to any considerable extent in this county (Barnwell). On some 
farms the "stands" have been injured by the cut- worm, which is the same as that 
which cuts down cabbage and other vegetables, and is not peculiar to cotton. This 
trouble is occasional — of late cool springs. Lice or Aphis are often seen on the young 
plant, but seldom injure it. There is no boll-worm yet in any part of the county. — 
[James C. Brown, Barnwell. 

TEXAS. 

The boll-worm (IlcUothis) has done more damage this year tlian the Kocfua xijlina. 
They appeared early in June, and the third crop is still at work. The crop of this 
county is cut oil" at least one-third. A tield of sixty acres jdanted by my brother-in- 
law that with no casualty would have made forty-live bales, will barely make fifteen, 
while some fields are entirely untouched. The egg is laid on the iuvolucel during the 
night, hatches in from six to ten days, and commences feeding on the parenchyma of 
the calyx, and as soon as they have got strength they eat through into the inclosed 
flower-bud, or into the boll, if laid after the bloom. They destroy one or more of (he 
divisions in the boll, and all that are punctured before blooming or while quite young 
fall off. In the field mentioned above we found many stalks six to seven feet high 
without a single boll. Instead of webbing up on the cotton-plant, this worm descends 
into the ground, where it makes a cocoon and is enabled to withstand the severity of 
our winters, and thus m.akes its appearance as soon as the weather becomes warm in 
the spring. I have often plowed out the clirysalides, and examined to see if they were 
alive, finding them so. The fly, or moth, is hardly half as large as that of the former 
insect. There are some other insects injurious to the cotton-plant, and I do not know 
that any effort has been made for their extermination, or if any means could be adopted 
successfully. — [Walter Barnes, Cherokee. 

The boll-worm fly deposits its egg on the young squares just before they bloom, 
about the last of July or first of August. The fly deposits its eggs at twilight and 
mooulight nights. I cannot say what kind of a moth it is, but my neighbor, an in- 
telligent planter, says it is a yellow fly, smaller than the army-worm fly. 1 have never 
seen the boll-worm eat anything but the young bolls and squares before blossoming. 
They pierce the blossom and eat or suck the juice, which causes them to drop off. 
Some seasons they are more numerous than others. I have never heard of any means 
being taken by any farmer to destroy or prevent their depredations, but they take 
their presence as a matter of course. — [C. B. Richardson, Rusk. 

We have the old-time enemy, the boll-worm that punctures the squares and bolls. 
I am certain the larva of this insect falls to the ground and hides itself there to per- 
fect its being. There is another insect that we call the " boll- weevil" or " ball-cur- 



APPENDIX II ANSWERS TO CIRCULAR. 489 

culio," that punctures the boll and causes it to commence rotting from a very small 
black speck. This rot continues throughout the whole boll, sometimes leaving one 
lobe. It is a small black beetle about one-sixteenth of an inch long. I once had a 
fine crop destroyed by this insect when my near neighbor suftered very little. Ikly 
cotton being older, was suited better for its work. There was a great quantity of cot- 
ton destroyed in Texas this year, when rot had credit of doing it. I know of uo 
remedy against this insect. — [W. T. Hill, Walker. 

There is what we call the boll-worm, that bores a small hole in the little pod while 
in a state of formation; it does its work in the night; it will be hard to destroy. 
Thirty-five years ago there was a web-worm came on the cotton in May, andj^terally 
killed it, except the stem ; however it would sprout out ag.iiu and make a crop. That 
was in certain localities. This worm has entirely disappeared. I have lived in Texas 
forty years next month ; have made thirty-nine crops. My experience is the worm 
■will be hard to overcome ; he is a fixture upon us, and the surest remedy against him 
is to plant eai-ly and cultivate well ; in so doing a reasonable crop can be frequently 
realized. If all the farmers would combine and place lamps on posts in llat tin pans 
with kerosene in them the moth could be more etfectually destroyed than any other 
way I see. — [O. H. P. Garrett, Washington. 

The boll-worm, (Heliothis) has done more injury to the cotton-plant than any other 
insect this year. Unlike the army worm, they hibernate in the country, and commence 
their depredations as soon as the young bloom buds make their appearance. Some 
years they do a great deal of damage ; it is said by so^me farmers that fit'tj^ per cent, of 
the crop is lost on account of the boll-worm. It seems the moth deposits the egg in 
the last bloom bud. When hatched it eats out the pistil of the unexpanded flower, 
(it is now called sharp-shooter,) then descends the branch, eating up all on his way, 
and by the time it gets to the last one perhaps it is grown and ready to go into the 
chrysalis state. There are birds and poultry that feed on the larva when it can be 
got at. The plant-louse is somewhat injurious to the young cotton-plant ; hot weather 
soon drives it away. — [J. M. Glasco, Upshur. 

The cut-worm, boll-worm, grasshopper, and lice are all more or less injurious to the 
cotton-plant. — [S. B. Tackaberry, Polk. 

In 1877 the boll-worm appeared in Clay County, and some fields were about half 
eaten up, while others were not touched. — [W'illiam Tanner, Clay. 

The boll-worm is some years quite destructive, though I hear of none this year. — 
[Samuel Davis, Hunt. 

When the young plant first makes its appearance above the ground the cut-worm, 
which attacks all young plants, will destroy a few plants here and there. Later in the 
spring, when the plant has taken on some five or six or more leaves, the web-worm 
almost every year will eat and web upon some of the most vigorous stalks. The injury 
inflicted by these insects is not much dreaded, as their evil tendencies may be corrected, 
and they soon disappear as spring advances. The next and last enemy of the cotton- 
plant is the boll-worm, which only penetrates the young boll when in its most delicate 
and tender state, and is sometimes more destructive than the army worm. There are 
some points of resemblance between the two, but their tastes and habits, although both 
only prey on cotton, are totally different. They are represented as having appeared 
in several counties of the interior. They are rarely seen on or near the coast, evidently 
preferring a higher latitude. — [W. J. Jones, Galveston. 

This insect, though not so numerous nor so regular in its visitations, is far more for- 
midable in its ravages than the leaf-worm, since there is no way of saturating the cot- 
ton-boll with poison to destroy them. A very intelligent planter in Falls County, on the 
Brazos River, in this State, is well satisfied that he has found the miller or mother moth 
of this worm, and has discovered a sure, simple, and inexpensive method for its de- 
struction, and at the same time increasing the yield of the staple. He says the egg is 
deposited by a moth of a lighter color, of larger size, and much heavier body than that 
of the army worm ; that it invariably deposits its eggs on the very top bud of the cot- 
ton-plant ; that as the worm increa-es in size he travels down the stalk, taking every 
boll as he goes, rapidly penetrating the same in its young and succulent state, very 
few worms completing the destruction of the entire fruit of the plant. The worm 
attaining its full growth is larger than the army worm, and is more destructive to the 
product of the plant. This gentleman, with some of his neighbors, watched closely 
the progress of this insect, and very satisfactory results were obtained. Experiments 
were made upon three ditierent plantations with the same results. They all checked 
the march by topping the cotton (removing the bud) when the moth first made its 
appearance, and whether the egg was only in deposit or the young worm at work, the 
result was the same, as both perished upon the ground, and the worm never made an 
cfl^ort to reascend the stalk. The topping of cotton has been practiced many years by 
some of our most intelligent planters, but with a different purpose, the stripping of 
the top being supposed to increase the fruiting and to hasten the opening of the pods 
of cotton. — [ William J. Jones, Galveston. 

The boll-worm is very injurious to cotton in August and September by boring in the 



490 EEPORT UPON COTTON INSECTS. 

bloom and the yomig bolls, causing them to fall ofF. They are more or less on the cot- 
ton every year. The lirst crop of bolls that are formed in July generally escape their 
ra%'ages, but the top squares and boUst hat come in August are liable to their attacks. — 
[C. B. Richardson, Rusk. 

The cotton has two more dreadful enemies ; the first consists of a small bee or fly that 
bores into the square or rather the formation of the bloom, and causes it to wither and 
fall off. Some years they are very destructive. The second is the boll- worm tbat pene- 
trates the young boll in its tender state, causing it to fall and sometimes rot on the 
plant. This pest is caused by a small fly or bee ttiat deposits its oggs on the boll, and 
I think is the same chap that bores in the s(iuare; the ouly way to catch or destroy 
him is by the lamp ; you cannot do anything with him with poison, as he ouly preys 
on the boll, &c. — fNat. Holman, Fayette. 

Tbere is one other insect that has destroyed more cotton in this locality within the 
four years than all other insects combined. It is known here as the boll- worm, the 
moth of which is larger and darker than the cotton-moth, which deposits its eggs by 
piercing the form or square at the base of the bulb that makes the bloom. The egg 
hatches in a few days, and the larva devours the young boll before it fairly blooms. 
Then it crawls upon the limb to another boll, bores in, and eats out the contents; 
then to another, and so on until all, or nearly all, that is upon the stalk is destroyed. 
The habit of the moth is nearly that of the cotton-moth, but the worm does not re- 
semble that of the cotton-worm in any respect. It does not feed upon anything but 
the cotton-boll. Its numbers are increasing so rapidly and its destruction so great, it 
is becoming a terror to tiie cotton planter in this locality. If you know anything of 
this worm and can point out some means of destroying it you will have the gratitude 
of the cotton planters in this county and probably throughout the cotton belt. — [J. 
W. Jackson, Titus. 

The plant is injured to some extent by aphides or leaf-louse, which appear every 
year in large numbers on the lower side of the leaves; they do the most injury in 
spring, when the plant is small and tender. The tvvh-worm, which only injures the 
plant in spring when the plant is small, and appears mostly in large and destructive 
numbers during the prevalence of cold and dry weather, the plant then making little 
or no jjrogress in growth ; the worm is a small insect about one inch in length, green 
-with black dots, spins the leaf together, and destroys the substance between the leaf 
ribs, causing the young plant to wither and die. The boll- worm, which attacks the 
grown fruit before its opening, boring into it and destroying the lint, has been very 
destructive the iiast summer. Several varieties of grasshoppers, the green grasshop- 
per appearing in summer, has been observed the past summer in large and destructive 
numbers in some fields. — [J. II. Kraucherj Austin. 



^FPFENDIX III. 



LIST OF CORRESPONDENTS. 

The following list contains the names and addresses of those gentlemen not regu- 
larly emiiloyed in the iuvestigiitiou who have assisted in its prosecution either by an- 
swers to the circular-letter or by other correspondence. They are arranged alphabet- 
ically under the subheads of their respective States, and the States themselves are also 
alphabeticallv arranged : 

ALABAMA. 



Names of correspondents. 



H. C.Brown 

P.D.Bowles 

I. F. Culver 

J. r. Calhoun 

J. A. Callaway 

W.M.Douuliis 

John Witherspoon Du Bose 

K.B.Duulap 

I. li. Diiesbach 

A. D. Edwards 

P.T Graves 

H. Haw kins 

J.N. Gilmore 

K.r.Henry 

C.C.Howard 

James M. Harrington 

J. S. Hausberger 

M. W, Hand 

Charles M. Howard 

John D.Johnston, M.D 

Andrew Jay 

Knox, Mingo and Evans . . . 

David Leo 

J. C. Matthews 

K. H.Powell 

Dr. John Peurifoy 

J. R Rogers 

R. \V. Russell 

H. A. Stolenwerck 

J. H. Strith 

H. Tutwiler 

George W. Thagard 

Robert S. Williams 



Camden 

Evergreen 

Union Springs 

Minter 

Snowdoun 

Huntsville 

Pike Road 

Boligeo 

Tensaw 

Tuskegee 

BurkviUe 

Hawkinsville 

Gaston 

Columbus 

Ataugaville 

Newtown Academy 

Tionus 

Forkland 

Mulberry 

Sumterville 

Jayviile 

Paunsdale 

Mount Willing 

Crittenden Mills 

Union Springs 

Mount Meigs 

Union Springs 

Lowndesborough . . , 

Uniontown , 

Minter 

Green Spring 

Rntledgo 

Mount Meigs 



"Wilcox. 

Conecuh. 

Bullock. 

Dallas. 

Montgomery. 

Madison. 

Montgomery. 

Greene. 

Baldwin. 

Macon. 

Lowndes. 

Barbour. 

Sumter. 

Mississippi. For 
Pickens Coun- 
ty, Alabama. 

Autauga. 

Monroe. 

Bibb. 

Greene. 

Autauga. 

Sumter. 

Conecuh. 

Hale. 

Lowndes. 

Dale. 

Bullock. 

Montgomery. 

Bullock. 

Lowndes. 

Perry. 

Dallas. 

Hale. 

Crenshaw. 

Montgomery. 



ARKANSAS. 



Names of correspondents. 



S. "W. Cochran.... 

E. T.Dale 

O. L. Dodd 

T. S. Edwards .... 

T. W. Quinn 

L. N. Rhodes 

J. W. Ransom 

Alfred A. Turner. 
John T. Wickham 
G. Whittington... 
Norliorno Young. . 



County. 



Union 

Texark.ina , 

Mountain Homo 

Gum Log 

Prattsvillo 

Wittsburgh 

Jonesborough .. 

Hermitage 

Boydsville 

Mount Ida 

Magnolia 



Fulton. 

Miller. 

Baxter. 

Pope. 

Grant. 

Cross. 

Craighead. 

Bradley. 

Clay. 

Montgomery. 

Columbia. 



491 



492 



EEPORT UPON COTTON INSECTS. 
FLORIDA. 



Names of correspondents. 



J. Bradforfl 

John B. Carrm 

Robert Gamble . .. 
John M. McGeliee 

F. M. Meekin 

W. E. Woodruff... 



Tallahassee. ... 
Deadmen's Bay. 
Tal'ahassee. .... 

Milton 

Morrison's Mills 
New Berlin 



Leon. 

Taylor. 

Leon. 

Santa Rosa. 

Alachua. 

Duval. 



GEORGIA. 



Names of correspondents. 



James R. Brown 

A. J. Cheves 

Timothy Fiissel 

George P. Harrison . 

H. M. Hammctt 

W. A. Hariis 

"William .Tones 

William J. .Johnson. 

Morgan Kemp 

M. l3. Langsford 

D. P. Luke 

S P. Odom 

R. H. Spriu^rer 

E. M. Thompson .. 
John T. Win'^lield.. 



Canton 

ilouteznma. . 

Kirk land 

Savannah ... 

Marietta 

Isabella 

Athens 

Spi in<r Place . 
Bueua Vista . 

Rin;rirold 

Nashville 

Drayton 

"Whitesburg . 
Jeflerson . . . . 
Washington . 



County. 



Cherokee. 

Macon. 

Collee. 

Chatham. 

Cobb. 

Worth. 

Clark. 

Murray. 

Marion. 

Catoosa. 

Ben'ien. 

Dooly. 

(Carroll. 

Jackson. 

Wilkes. 



LOUISIANA. 



Names of correspondents. 



I. iJ. Ball. TSr. D 

Douglass M. Uamilton . 

John A . Marymau 

C. B. Richardson 

H. B.Sliaw 

G. W.Thomas 



Bayou Sara 

Saint Francisvillo 



Henderson 
Lake Saiut .John . 
Cjpro-mort 



County. 



West Feliciana. 
West Feliciana. 
Ea.st Feliciana. 
East Carroll. 
Concordia. 
Saint Mary's. 



MISSISSIPPI. 



Names of correspondents. 



E.H.Anderson, M. D 

J. W.Burch 

S,Cnlbertson 

Kenneth Clarke 

Daniel Cohen 

I. G.G.Garrett 

AVilliam T.Lewis ... 
D. L. Phares, M. D . . . 

Jofeu C. Russell 

C. F. Sherriod 

Samuel Scott 

W. Spilliuan 

George V. Webb 

C.Welch. 



Kirkwood 

Fayette 

Brandon 

Okolona 

Ashwood Station 

Port Gibson 

Louisville 

"WoDdville 

Kirkwood 

Columbus , 

Canton 

Enterprise 

Liberty 

Station Creek 



County. 



Madison. 

Jefferson. 

Rankin. 

Chickasaw. 

Wilkin.sou. 

Claiborne. 

Winston. 

Wilkinson. 

Madison. 

Lowndes. 

Madison. 

Clark. 

Amite. 

Covington. 



APPENDIX III. LIST OF COREESPONDENTS. 

NOETn CAROLIN'A. 



493 



Names of correspondents. 



S. W.Blalock 

J.anies M. Barnett 

J. B. Click 

J. W.Cooper 

W. G. Curtis 

IX L). D.ivies 

J. J. Ei'wiu 

J. Evans 

II. M. Houston 

W. II. Hartsrovo . 
Josepli Living.ston 

T. 11. Lassiter 

Thomas Long 

ir. McKav 

T. L. Rawley 

John Kobinson 

IM. Smith 

Jasper Stone 

11. T. Weaver 



Town. 



Bakersville 

Iloxborough . . 

Oak Forest 

Murphoy 

Smithviile 

Cullowhee 

Morganton 

Fayetteville ... 

Monroe 

Garden Creek. . 
Henderson ville 

Gatesville 

Huntsvillo 

Lillington 

Euflin 

Goldsborough. . 
Scotland Neck. 

Pin Hook 

Saint John 



Countv. 



Mitchell. 

Person. 

Iredell. 

Cherokee. 

Brunswick. 

<> ackson. 

Burke. 

Cumberland. 

Union. 

Haywood. 

Henderson. 

Gates. 

Yadkin. 

Harnett. 

Rockingham. 

Wayne. 

Halifax. 

Gaston. 

Hertford. 



SOUTH CAROLINA. 



Names of correspondents. 


Town. 


County. 




Millettvillo 




Paul S. Feldei' 


Orangeburgb .- 

Vv alterborough 


Orangeburgb. 
Colleton. 











TENNESSEE. 



Names of correspondents. 



County. 



N. T. Cavit 

E. W. Cunningham 

L Dodson 

W. C.Emmert 

A. Gardner 

L.C.Hall 

A. W. Hunt, M. D . 

John F. Hauser 

J. M. Hammer 

n. W.Hart 

J. P. Hooke 

D. W. Holman 

J. S. Lindsay 

Ephraim Link 

Robert McXeilly .. 
Thomas J. Mason.. 

John McMillan 

J. S. Thomason 

Miles F. West 

J. K. P. Wallace... 
George W. Walker 



Paris 

Lexington 

Athens 

Vanderbilt 

Dresden 

Gainsborough . . . 
Denscn's Laudin 

Gruotli 

Sovierville 

Pike ville 

^laryvillo 

Fayetteville 

Jacksborough ... 

Greeneville 

Chailotto 

LoiTdon , 

Decaturville 

Glenloch 

Walnut Shade . . 
Audersonville ... 
Springfield 



Henry. 

Hendierson. 

McMiuu. 

Unicoi. 

Weakley. 

Jackson. 

Perry. 

Grundy. 

Sevier." 

Bledsoe. 

Blount. 

Lincoln. 

Campbell. 

Greene. 

Dickson. 

Loudon. 

Decatur. 

Monroe. 

Macon. 

Anderson. 

Robertson. 



494 



EEPORT UPON COTTON INSECTS. 

TEXAS. 



Names of correspondents. 



H. J. H. Brensing 

"Walter Barnes 

P.S.Clarke 

Samuel Davis 

0. H. r. Garrett . . 

J. M. Glasco 

W.T.Hill 

Stephen Harhert.. 

!Natt. Holman 

W.R. Hayes 

J. W. Jackson 

J. n. Kranchcr... 

1. I'\ P. Kruise 

Pijor Lea 

James O. Gaflney. 
C. B. Richardson . 

A. Shroeter 

John Speir 

S. B. Tackaberry . 

"Wm. Tanner 

A. Turpo 

A. Underwood 

P. S. "Watts 

II. "Wipprecht 



Texarkana, Miller County, 
Arkansas. 

Larissa 

Hempstead 

GreenviUo 

Brenham 

Gilmer 

"Waverly 

Alleyton 

Fayetteville 

Aransas 

Mount Pleasant 

Millheim 

Fort McKavett 

Goliad 

San Patricio 

Henderson 

Double Horn 

Blanco 

Moscow 

Cambridge 

Eagle Pass 

Columbia 

Hardin 

Now Braunf els 



County. 



Por Bowie Coun- 
ty, Texas' 
Cherokee. 
"Waller. 
Hunt. 

"Washington. 
TJpshur. 
"VValker. 
Colorado. 
Fayette. 
Bee. 
Titus. 
Austin. 
Menard. 
Goliad. 
San Patricio. 
Rusk. 
Burnet. 
Blanco. 
Polk. 
Clay. 
Maverick. 
Brazoria. 
Hardin. 
Comal. 



INDEX. 



A. 

Page. 

Abbott, C. C, quoted 149 

Acacia magnifica, nectar of 326 

spbaerocephala 327 

Acanthocephala femorata 167,168 

AcberoDtia atropos 202 

Acklin's Island, cbenille on 276 

ravages of cotton-worm on 19 

Acrobasis jnglandis 200 

Adnlt Aletia. (See cotton-worm moth). 

Aejieriadae 11 

Affleck, Thomas, article on cotton-insects 277,278 

commendation of writings of 75 

quoted 24,20,109,106,191 

sends specimens to Harris 13 

views on migration discussed 118 

Agelaius phaenicus vs. cotton-worms 142 

Agrotis, several species mistaken for Aletia 106 

Afjrotis ijpsUon, attracted to Aletia bait 259 

Alabama, average losses 70 

Aletia argillacea, technical description 90 

(See cotton-worm moth). 

Aletia, destruction of eggs 231 

hand-picking vs 230 

preventive measures against 230 

vitellina 14 

Alexandria Republican, quoted 23 

Allen, J. A., quoted 146 

Allen, S. D., duster 247 

Amarantus spinosus, Aletia webbing up in leaves of 92 

Ambrosia artemesiael'olia, Aletia webbing up in leaves of 92 

American Entomologist, quoted 166 

gooseberry saw-fly, Arma spinosa vs 166 

Amount of damage, table showing 47-62 

Amphigyra, attracted to Aletia bait 259 

Anderson, E. H., appointment as local observer 3 

articles on cotton-worm 281 

quoted 179,258,268,178,103 

Andrena, Arma spinosa vs 166 

Anomis bipunctina, Guen^e, synonymous with N. xylina 14 

ei osa Hiibn 14 

grandipuucta Guen 15 

Ants vs. boll- worms 310 

rs. cotton- worms 181 

vs. the wet weather abundance of the cotton-worm 134, 137 

Aphides, aphis lions vs 164 

Aphis gossypii, Sinea multispinosa rs 170 

Alibis lions, habits of 164 

vs. cotton- worms 164 

Aphis mali, Sinea multispinosa vs 170 

Araneida rs. cotton-worms 162 

Argiojie riparia rs. the cotton- worm 163 

Argyunis columbina 178 

Arkansas, average losses 70 

Arma spinosa rs. the cotton-worm 166 

Army worm of the North 202,203, 11 

use as a popular name for the cotton- worm 11 

495 



496 INDEX. 

Paije. 

Arsenic, accnmnlafions of, in the soil 235 

its compouufls 232 

its compounds, objections to the use of £34 

metallic 261 

Arsenious acid vs. Aletia 2r)9 

Asiliidae 170 

Asilus-tlies 170 

vs. boll- worms 311 

Asilus sericeous 172 

Attacus promethia 201 

sp. mistaken for Aletia 105 

Attides, vs. cotton-worms 1<)3 

Attus fasciatiis 1(33 

nubilus vs. the cotton- worm 1G3 

Anghey, S., quoted 212, 157, 140 

Australia, boll- worm in 293 

enemies to cotton crop in. 71 

Average losses, table of 70 

B. 

Bahamas, cotton-worms in, since 1300 71 

investigation by the assembly of the 19 

Bail, Dr., quoted 1 217 

Bailey, J. F., quoted 261,101 

Ball, I. U., quoted 184,166 

Barnes, W., quoted 28o, 122 

Barn swallow vs. cotton-worms 142 

Bartramian plovers vs. insects 212 

Batchelder, C. F., quoted 146 

Baton Kouge Advertiser, quoted 22 

Bats vs. cotton-worms 138 

Beach, A. E., article on cotton- worm 282 

Beans, boll- worm vs 296, 297 

Bechstein, F. M., quoted 150 

Bee-martin vs. cotton-worms 141 

Beer toruhie vs. insects 217 

Bembecidae 181 

Bessey, C. E., quoted 233 

Bi bliography , chapter on 276 

of nectar 333 

scope of 276 

Bienville, dispatch of 18 

Birds nesting in south 159 

protection of 230 

vs. cotton-worms 141 

Blackbird, cow, vs. cotton-worms 142 

red-wing, vs. cotton-worms 142 

Blasted squares, reasons for 290 

Bluebird, vs. cotton-worms 141 

Blue jays, warning against 158 

Bluestoue, vs. Aletia 261 

Boarmia, sp 104 

Bobolinks, vs. cotton- worms 141 

Bock, T. F., quoted 150 

Boll-worm, amount of damage done by 287-291 

ants vs 310 

cannibalistic habits 303 

chrysalis, description of 305 

chrysalis, place of pupation 304 

diversity of color 301 

enemies of 311 

fifth brood 308 

first brood 307,300 

tirst food 300 

food plants 293 

fourth brood 308 

geographical distribution 293 

hibernation 309 



INDEX. 497 

Page. 

Boll- worm, identical with corn-worm 293 295 

iulliieuce of weather on ' 'SU'J 

method of work ;^0l 

most constant features 302 

moth, destruction of 315 

moth, general liabits 30,i 

moth, t ime of flight 30(5 

moth, variation 30(5 

nomenclature 292 

number of broods 307 

parasites of 311 

preying on Aletia 17<) 

remedies for 311 

second brood 307 

the egg 297 

third brood 307, 3U3 

use of term ., 292 

variation in broods 308 

rs. Aletia chrysalides 303 

rs. Aletia larvae 304 

corn 2H'J 

young 299 

Bombus, sp. vs. nectar of cotton 322 

Bombyciae 12 

Bombycidae - 11 

Bonasa umbellus rs. cotton-worms 142 

Bond, quoted 293 

Bonnet squash, nectar of , 327 

Bowles, P. D., quoted 142, 138.98 

Bradford, John, quoted 258 

Brazil, cotton-worm in 74 

Brewer, T. M., quoted 156 

Brewster, William, quoted 144 

British Guiana, cotton-worm in 72 

Brown, H. C, quoted 288, 184 

Brown, J. C, quoted 136, 184 

Buhach , 236 

Bull bat vs. cotton-worms , 142 

Bunting, the painted, vs. cotton- worms 141 

Burgess, Edmund, acknowledgment of assistance from 8 

quoted 209,89,117 

Burke, J. W., quoted 9^ 

Burnett, W. I., on the cotton-worm 278, 113 

views on migration discussed 119 

Butler, Major, destruction of Holds of, in 1793 19 

Byrne and Strunk's lantern ^. 272 

C. 

Calcorus bimaculatus ts. cotton-bolls , 290 

rapidus vs. cotton-bolls 290 

Callaway, J. A., quoted „ 98, G7, 184 

Callidryas eubule vs. nectar of cotton 322 

Calliphora 206 

Caloptenus sp., Erax apicalis vs 173 

Calosoma callidum 175 

scrutator 175 

Camel-cricket vs. the cotton-worm 1(55 

Canker-worm, London purple vs 234 

Sicca multispinosa vs 1G9 

Capers, C.W., quoted 19,20,21 

Capers, Dr. C. W., sends specimens to Say 12 

Capsicum annuum, boll- worm vs 297 

Carabidae 174 

Carbolic acid 220,221,235 

Carolina tiger beetle 174 

Carpenter, C. M., quoted 144 

Carpocapsa pomonella 200 

Cassia obtusif olia, Aletia webbing up in leaves of 92 

32 CI 



498 INDEX. 

Page. 

Cassia occidentalis; Aletia webbing up in leaves of 92 

nectar of '^'■16 

Caterpillar, the 11 

Cats vs. cotton- worms - 13S 

Cbalcididae, general remarks on 193 

Chalcid parasite, unnamed 196 

Cbalcis , '<J30 

ovata 194,212 

Cbarlestou Library Society, acknowledgment of loan of books from 8 

Charlevoix, saw cotton in 172'2 18 

Chaulioguathus marginatus 322 

vs. cotton-worm3 17(3 

pennsylvanicus 175 

Chenille in Guiana 19 

introduction as a popular name 11 

Cheves, A. J., quoted 288 

Cbildcorus bivuluerus 177 

Cbickens vs. cotton- worms 139 

Chickpea, bnll-worm is 29o 

Chisholm, Dr., account of the chenille in British Guiana 72 

article on cot ton- worm 276 

description of the chenille of Guiana 18 

quoted 139 

Chisbolm, Robert, quoted 113 

Chordeiles virgiuianus vs. cotton-worms 142 

Chrysalides of boll-worm, destruction of 314 

of Aletia 83 

of boll- worm, description 305 

place of pupation 304 

Cbrysis attracted to Aletia bait 259 

Chrysomelidae 178 

Chrysomitris tridtia vs. cotton-worms 141 

Chry sopa oculata 104 

perla 164 

Cicada, Arma spinosa rs 166 

Cicer arietinum, boll- worm rs :. 296 

Ciucindela 174 

Ciucindelidae - 173 

Circular of July 22, 1878 3 

Cirrosuilus esurus 195 

Clarke, P. S., quoted 21,184,122 

Classilicatiou and nomenclature, chapter on 11 

Clear- winged moths 11 

Clubiona pallens 163 

Cobalt vs. Aletia 261 

Cocciuella, Arma spinosa rs 166 

muuda 176 

9- notata 176 

veuusta 177 

Coccinellidae 176 

Coccygns Americanus vs. cotton- worms 142 

Cocoon of Aletia 82 

Collee-weed, nectar of 328 

Coleoptera, members of, preying on Aletia - 173 

Collecting larvae 231 

Colhiris ludovicianus vs. cotton-worms 142 

Colopha ulmicola 179 

Colorado potato-bug killed by Tachinas 203 

Mantis Carolina rs 165 

Sinea multispinosa rs 169 

Comstock, J. H., appointment as special agent 3 

region assigned to 3 

scope of work 6 

takes charge of entomological division 7 

Concordia Intelligencer quoted 22 

■Coons rs. cotton-worms 13S 

Corn- bud worm, use of name 292 

Corn- worm, use of name 292 

Corouilla varia, extra-lloral nectar of 8-2 



INDEX. 499 

Page. 

Corrosive sublimate vs. Aletia j>59 

Cosmia 13 

Cotton-ant, the 18;; 

Cotton army-worm , 11 

Cotton-caterpillar 11 

Cotton culture in United States, early history of , 17 

Cotton-fly 11 

Cotton- Lygaeus 290 

Cotton-moth 11 

Cotton- worm 11 

invertebrate enemies of li)2 

Cotton-worm moth 11 

appearance.- 84 

chapter on migrations of 109 

food of 84 

hibernation 99-1 0^ 

conclusions 10(5 

length of life 88 

localities of hibernation 108 

method of piercing fruit 8rt 

natural position at rest 88 

number of eggs laid by 88 

other moths mistaken for 108 

powers of flight 89 

j)resence in Northern States 89 

structure of maxillae , 86-87 

technical description 90 

time of oviposition 88 

vs. apples 86 

vs. Cassia occidentalis 8o 

rs. cotton glands 84 

vs. cow-pea 85 

vs. figs 8() 

vs. grapes 8G 

vs. jujube 8(5 

fs. melons 86 

vs. peaches 86 

vs. Paspalum laeve 84 

natural enemies of 138 

Cotton-worm. (See Larva of Aletia.) 

vertebrate enemies of 138 

Coucs, Dr. E., acknowledgment of assistance from 8 

quoted 15iJ 

Cow-bird, warning against 158 

Cow-pea, bcll-worm rs 296 

Cragiu, F. W., quott^d 74 

Cranston, G. C., lantern 270 

Crematogaster 187 

clava 188 

lincolata 188 

Cresson, E. T., acknowledgment of assistance from 8 

quoted..-. 198,201 

Cryptus conquisitor. {See Pimpla conquisitor.) 

hyaliua 199 

nuucLus 201 

l)leurivinctu8 199 

Cuba, cotton-worm in - 72 

Cuckoo, yellow-bill, vs. cotton- worms 142 

Cucurbita pepo, boll- worm rs 297 

Culver, I. F., quoted 0C>, 184 

Cupidouia cupido, vs. cotton- worms 1-12 

Cut- worms 12 

fall plowing a remedy for 314 

Cyanide of potassium vs. Aletia 259 

Cyauospiza ciris, vs. cotton- worms 141 

cyanea rs. cotton-worms 141 

Cyprepedium 322 



500 INDEX. 

D. 

Page. 

Dakruma coccidivora 179 

Damage, t able showing aaiouat of 47-(i2 

Darlingtonia Californica, nectar of o2S 

Darwiu, Francis, quoted 87 

Daughtrev's machine 242, 243, 229 

Davis, N/A., quoted 231,134,1:^6 

sifter 249 

Davis, S., quoted i, 18i 

Deaue, R., quoted 146 

Depressaria gossypiella ^ 14 

gossypioules 13 

Deatruction of Aletia pupae , '^56 

cotton-worms by machinery 253 

egga ' 231 

moths 256 

Devil's coach-horses vs. boll- worms 311 

daruingneedles li)4 

horse 1(>8 

riding horse rs. the cotton-worm 1G5 

Dextrine 220, 226, 227, 2'<.8 

Diabrotica 12-puuctata 178 

Dibolia aerea 103 

Didictyum zigzag 197,213 

Diogmites discolor 172 

Diouyzias sp. 172 

Diptera, members of, preying on Aletia 170 

parasites of Aletia belonging to 202 

Dix well, J., quoted 146 

Dodge, C. K., acknowledgment of the services of 8 

articles on cotton-worm - 281,283 

Dogs rs. cotton-worms 138 

Dolichoderidao 185 

Doliehonyx oryzivorous vs. cotton- worms 141 

Doly chos ♦ 7 

Domestic fowls vs. cotton-worms 139 

Donovan, J., experiments with Paris green 38 

u«e of i)oultry rs. cotton- worms 139 

Dorvmyrmex 185 

flavus 183,187 

iusanus 183, 186 

pyramicus. {See D. insanus.) 

Doryphora 10-liueata, Arma spiuosa rs 166 

Doublcday, E., article on cotton-worm 277,278 

letter to Harris 13 

Dragon-flies, habits of 164 

Drasteria orechta, mistaken for Aletia 106 

Dricsbach, J. D., quoted 98 

Dry poisons 245 

Ducks vs. cotton- worms 140 

Dudley, C. R., lantern 269 

Duulap, R. B., quoted 138 

Duke, J. R., lantern 266 

Dutch Guiana, cotton- worm in 73 

E. 

Ear-worm - - -- — 308 

Edwards, Bryan, quoted 19 

work on West Indies 276 

Edwards, T. S., quoted 66 

Edwards, W. IL, quoted 18ji 

Egg of Aletia ''5 

description of 75 

ligured - '<'6 

length of time before hatching 76 

number laid by a single moth 88 

place and manner of deposit 76 

Egg of boll- worm moth, place of deposit 298 



INDEX. 501 

Page. 

Egg of Heliotbis, description 297, 293 

length of time before hatching 2'JC 

Egg parasite on the cotton-worm „ 193 

Egypt, rumor of Aletia in 71 

EUhidge, F. A., poison distributor 2r)l 

Elis 4-notata 1 181 

vs. nectar of cotton 322 

Elis plumipes 181 

V8. nectar of cotton 322 

English sparrow 230 

Epeira riparia. (See Argiope riparia.) 

stellata 163 

Epeirides vs. cotton-worm 103 

Epilachna 176 

borealis 178 

vs. bonnet squash 337 

Eraxapicalis 172 

bastardii 172 

Erratic ant. {See Dorymyrmex insanus.) 

Ery thrina herbacea, boll- worm vs ,. 298 

Estimates of loss by States 67 

Euclemensia bassettella 179 

Euphorbia maculata, Aletia webbing up in leaves of 02 

pulcherrima, nectar of 323 

Europe, boll- worm in 297 

Ewing, W., machine 255 

Esorista flavicauda 203 

F. 

Fabricius, J. C, description of Noctua gossypii 18 

Fallou, M. J., quoted 296 

Fall plowing as a remedy for boll- worm 314 

Felder, P. S., quoted 121 

Ferguson, J. M., article on cotton- worm 279 

Fires rs. Aletia 262 

Fire-flies - 175 

First appearance of cotton-worms in United States 17 

Fitch, A., quoted 168,170 

Flesh-flies, habits of 204 

Florida, average losses ^ 70 

Flour 220,226,227,228 

Fly-stone vs. Aletia 261 

Forcing cotton as a remedy 231 

Forel, Dr. Auguste, acknowledgments to Is'J 

Formica fusca 182, 183, 188 

insana. (<See Dorymyrmex insanus.) 

Formicariae vs. cotton-worms 181 

Forniicidae 182,185 

Foul-brood ■- 209 

Fountain pump .239,241 

Fowler's solution 220,221,224 

Frayer, A. M., quoted 146 

French, G. H., quoted 304,314 

Fruit as bait for Aletia 231 

Fuller, E.N., quoted 20,25 

Fungoid diseases rs. insects 217 

G. 

Galtney, J. R., articles on cotton-worm 280 

Galvin, J., quoted. 156 

Gamble, John, quoted 298 

Gamble, R., quoted 98 

Garden pea, boll- worm vs 296 

Garrett, J. G. G., lantern 265 

Garret, O. H. P., quoted 1h4 

Geese rs. cotton-worms 139 

Geometridae 12 



502 INDEX. 

Page. 

Georgia, average losses 70 

emigration from Martinique to 19 

Gilmore, J. W., quoted 138,142 

Gladiolus, boll -worm vs y97 

Glands of row-pea 7 

Glasco, J. M., quoted 288 

Gloger, C. W. L., quoted : 151 

Glover, T., articles on the cotton-worm 278,279,281,28-2,283,284 

commendation of writings of 75 

quoted 294, 23, 39, 166, 167, 178, 180, 182, 191, 311, 503 

work on cotton insects 42 

Gorbam,D. B., article on cotton-worm 277 

quoted 190,109 

views on migration discussed 118 

Gortyna 12 

Gossypium herbaceum, leaf gland figured 318 

Goureau Ch., quoted 297 

Grace, J. W., quoted 2U 

Grapes, Aletiars 261 

Grasshoppers vs. cotton- worms 1()5 

Grass- worm 12 

predaceous habits 17;) 

Graves, P. T., quoted 98,122 

Gray arsenic 220,221.222,223,224,227 

Green chinches vs. cotton- worms 167 

Green soldier-bug is. the cotton- worm 1(57 

Greece, enemies to the cotton crop in 71 

Grote, A. R., appointment as special agent 3 

arl icles on cotton-worm 279, 281, 282, 283 

belief that Aletia is an indigene of South America 16 

discovery of the synonym of A. xylina and Aletia argillacea 14 

quoted 21, fc9, 96, 107, 115 

region assigned to 3 

suggests tbo combination Anomis XDlhia 14 

views on migration discussed 119 

Ground beetles 174 

vs. boll-worms 311 

Guen^e, A., on the cotton-moth 278 

Guiana, cotton-worm of 18 

Guinea fowls vs. cotton- worm , 140 

Gypsum 220,226,227 

H. 

Hagen, Dr. H. A., acknowledgment of assistance from 8 

quoted 217,150 

Hamilton, D. M., quoted 136,184,98,140 

Hand-picking, as a remedy for boll-worm 312 

Hand, M. W., quoted 139 

Harbert, S., quoted " VcA 

Harpalus calignosus 175 

Harris, T. W., letter to Doubledav 13 

T.Affleck 13 

quoted 172,21 

on cotton-worm „ 278, 289 

Harris, W. A., quoted 184,98,122,142 

Harvey, Dr. L., quoted 117 

Hansberger, J. L , quoted 140, 138 

Hawkins, H., quoted 66,2:;8,98 

Hawk-moths 11 

Heard's motb-trap 262 

Heliophila lineata 14 

unipuucta 202 

hibernation of 309 

Heliothis armigera, preys on Aletia 179 

exprimaus 292 

hibernation of 3U9 

umbrosus 292 

Helm, J., machine ., 253 



INDEX. 503 

Page. 

Henry, R. F., quoted KiS 

lleiiiiptera, members of, preying on Aletia lOG 

Hemp, boll- worm vs 297 

Heterocera 11 

Hewitt, Dr., account of Georgia and South Carolina 17 

Hiberuation, localities of lOrf 

of Aletia 99,1(30 

of Aletia, conclusions KHi 

of Aletia pupae 99, 100 

of the adult 101, UW 

of Heliothis.. 309 

Hibiscus graudiflorus, boll-worm vs 297 

Hippodamia convei'geus 177 

maculata 177 

Hirundo liorreorum rs. cotton- worms 142 

Historical account of ravages of Aletia 19-4G 

Hogs vs. cotton- worms l-W 

Holman, W., quoted 1H4 

Hornets rs. cotton- worms 180, IHl 

Howard, C. C, ([noted .2dS,yrf 

Howard, C. M., quoted 184,122 

Howard, L. O., acknowledgment of assistance from 9 

Howard, W. K., article on cotton-worm 282 

Hoj', Dr. P. K., acknowledgment of assistance from 8 

quoted 89 

Hiibner, J., description of Aletia argillacea 14 

work on foreign butterHips 27(i 

Humming-bird moths 11 

Humphreys, John, quoted 106. 107 

Hunt, A. W., M. D., quoted 122,174,184 

Hymenoptera, members of, preying on Aletia l-'* 

Hypena scabralis, mistaken for Aletia lOo 

I. 

Ichneumon flies, habits of 198 

Ichneumonidae, general consideration of - 198 

Ichneumon seductor 112 

Icterus Baltimore rs. cotton- worms 141 

Identity of Aletia with the chenille of South America and West Indies 18 

India, enemies to cotton crop in 71 

Indian corn, boll- worm vs 297 

Infligo bird vs. cotton- worms 141 

Influence of cold winters 133 

weather 133 

wet weather on cotton-worms 134 

winds on migration of moths 121 

Insectivorous birds of cotton- belt 1^9 

protection of 230 

Invertebrate enemies of the cotton-worm 162 

Investigation, beginning of the cotton- worm 45 

by the assembly of the Bahamas 19 

when begun 3 

Immigrations of Aletia. {See Migrations of Aletia 

Importance of natural enemies of cotton- worm 211 

Ipomea tamnifolia, Aletia webbingup in leaves of 92 

Iridomy rmex l"'' 

McCooki 187 

Isle of Wight, boll-worm in 29:i 

Italy, enemies to the cotton crop in 71 

J. 

Jackson, J. W., quoted 2t8 

Java, boll- worm in 293 

Jay, A., quoted 184,140,122,98 

Johnson's dead shot 234 

J. W., machine for poisoning •. 244 

Johnston, J. D., quoted 140 

Jones, William, articles on cotton- worms 280 

quoted 100,192 

W. J., appointment as local observer 3 

quoted 288,258 



504 INDEX. 

K. 

Page. 

Kearv, W. V., quoted 13G 

Kerosiiie 220, 221, 225, 235 

King-bird vs. cotton- worms , 141 

Kiug, F. H., ackno wledgtueut of assistance of 8, 143 

King, Pfj'ton, quoted 313 

Knowledge of the cotton- worm, want of, among southern planters 7 

Knox, Minge, & Evans, quoted 184,288 

Krancber, J. H., quoted 122,98,167,166,184,178,258 

L. 

Lace-wing flies — 104 

Lace-wiug fly larvae vs. boll-worms 311 

LachDOsterna f usca 172 

Ladj-birds vs. cotton-worms 170 

LoU-worms 311 

Lady-bugs vs. cot ton- worms 17G 

Lager beer as bait for Aletia 2(j0 

Lauipyridae - 175 

Lapbygma f rugiperda, predaceous habits 179 

Larva of Aletia 76 

color of newly-hatched 76 

disappearance of last brood 92 

of third crop 91 

duration of larva state 78 

eflcct of hot weather upon 91 

lirst appearance in the spring ,... 97 

habits of full grown 80,81 

habits of young 77 

jumping habits 78 

manner of hatching 76 

mirching habits 79 

migrations of 91 

number of broods in a season -. 88 

odor of cotton aflccted by 79 

other food-plants than cotton 82 

probability of a northern food-plant - 89 

structure of feet 71 

technical description 82 

the three "crops" 90 

variation of color in 78 

Lasius flavus 186 . 

Law, B. W., cotton insects collected by, in Cuba 120 

Laudou, M. D., article on cotton-worm 278 

Leaf-miners 12 

rollers 12 

Lee, D., quoted 288,67 

Lepidoptera, characterization of 11 

members of, preying on Aletia 178 

Letter to the commissioner 3 

Leucania unipuncta 101 

attracted to Aletia bait 259 

mistaken for Aletia 106 

Levy, C. A., poisoning machine 250 

Lewis, C, experience with lanterns 233 

Colonel, finds cotton-worm May 17 97 

Libellulatrimaculata 164 

Libellullidae 164 

Lima-beans, boll- worm vs 297 

Limcnitus dissippus 193 

Literature of the cotton- worm up to 1846 25 

Little, G., quoted 102 

Localities of hibernation of Aletia 108 

Lockwood, Dr., quoted .• 179 

Loggerhead vs. cotton- worms 142 

Loudon purple 220,221,222,223,224,226,227,232 

analysis of 234 

Losses since the war from cotton-worms 70 



INDEX. 505 

Pago. 

Losses, statistics of. 63-70 

summary of (i9 

table of average 70 

Loss, estimates of by States ./ G7 

general estimates of 6(5 

in 1877 from cotton-worm 0(3 

Louisiana, average losses 70 

Lncerne, boll- worm rs 2*J7 

Lycaeua pseiidargiolus -• 1>'2 

Lydella doryphorae 203 

Lygaeus sp., rs. cotton-bolls 290 

Lyman, J. B., articles on cotton-worm 279,280 

quoted 310 

M. 

McCook, H. C, acknowledgment of assistance from 8 

on ants 182 

McTntyre, Dr. E. L., quoted 74 

McKinnon, account of the chenille in Bahamas 19 

D., work ou West Indies 276 

McMillan, J., quoted 121 

McMurtrie, Dr. W., quoted 235 

McQueen, B. F., lantern 265 

Mantis Carolina 213 

eggs of 165 

vs. the cotton-worm 165 

Marcgravia nepenthoides, figured 318 

nectar of 323 

Martinique, emigration from, ou account of the chenille.. 19 

Maryman, J. A., quoted 140 

Mars, G., acknowledgment of determination of Araneida 163 

of services of 8 

Mashed apples as bait for Aletia 261 

Matthews, J. C, quoted 121 

Maxillae of cotton- worm moth 86-87 

of moths, structure of 87 

Maypop, nectar of 323 

Measuring- worm moths 12 

Medicava sativa, boll- worm vs 297 

Meekin, F. M., quoted 165, 140 

Megacephala 174 

Megachile sp. vs. nectar of cotton 322 

Melcagris gallopavors. cotton- worms 142 

Melissodes nigra rs. nectar of cotton 322 

Melons as bait for Aletia 261 

Mclospiza melodia rs. cotton- worms 142 

Metallic arsenic vs. Aletia '. 261 

Metapodius femorata. {See Acanthocephala.) 

Metha, sp 163 

Mexico, cotton worm in 72 

Microgaster - 198 

Migration of Aletia, influence of winds on 121 

of the moth, chapter on 109-132 

theory, history of 41, 42 

Mimus polyglottus vs. cotton-worms 14 L 

Miuot, H. D., quoted 145 

Mississippi, average losses 70 

Mocking-birds rs. cotton-worms 141 

boll- worm moths 311 

Modes of applying poisons 236 

Molasses and Fowler's solution 260 

vinegar 256 

vs. Aletia-. 258 

Molothoris pecoris vs. cotton-worms 142 

Monednla Carolina I'^l 

Monomorium 188 

carbonarium 183 188 

Morse, L. W., articles ou cotton- worm 279 



506 INDEX. 

Page. 

Mosquito-liawks, habits of ltJ4 

Moths, destruction of y">6 

talieii for Aletia, list of 10(3 

Mulberry, Aletia webbiog up in leaves of , 93 

Myrmeca liueolata. (Sec Crematogaster lineolata.) 

molesta cs. uectar of Euphorbia 324 

Myrmicidae 1^2, 187 

N. 

Natural enemies of the cotton-worm 138 

habitat of cotton worm IG 

Nectar glands of cotton, preliminary remarks H3 

plant, Prof. Riley on 7 

part on 31G 

Nemoraea leucaniae 202, 203 

Nepenthes 3J9 

Nest-proof cotton 216 

Neuroptera, members of, preying on Aletia I(i3 

Nezara hilaris .- 1(37 

Night-hawk vs. cotton-worms 14*2 

Noctua gossypii, Fabr., mentioned by Harris 13 

xylina. Say's description of 12 

Noctuae 12 

injurious insects belonging to 12 

Noctuidae 11 

characterization of 12 

Noctuo-phalaenidi 12 

Nomenclature, chapter on 11 

Number of broods of Aletia 83 

boll- worm 307 

Number of insects eaten by insectivorous birds 212 

Nuttall club on the sparrow question 145 

O. 

Occidental ant, the 186 

Odom, S. P., quoted 140 

(.)dor of cotton eaten by cotton-worms 79 

Oecodoma arborea. (Sec Crematogaster lineolata.) 

bicolor. (See Crematogaster clava.) 

vs. plants 330 

Ophideres f ullonica, habits of 87 

structure of maxillae isS 

Ophiusa xylina : 13 

Orange sirup as bait for Aletia 260 

Orchestria vittata 103 

Order for printing report 2 

Oriole, the yellow, vs. cotton- worms 141 

Orthoptera, members of, preying on Aletia 1()5 

Orthosia f errnginoides, attracted to Aletia bait 2.^)9 

Ortyx virgiuiauus rs. cotton-worms 142 

Ovate Chalcis, the 194 

O wlet-moths 11 

Oxyopes viridans vs. the cotton- worm 163 



Packard, A. S., jr., article on cotton-worm 283 

quoted 209,89,115,117 

Painted bunting vs. cotton-worms 141 

Parasites of Aletia, section on 189 

percentage of 230 

preservation of 230 

Parasitic insects, limitation of - 162 

Parasol ants 330 

Paris green , 'J^iO, 221, 222, 223, 225, 226, 227, 232 

circular concerning the use of 39 

history of its introduction as a cotton-worm remedy 38 

results of experiments with in 1873 39 

test of purity 233 



INDEX. 507 

Page, 

Partridge vs. cotton-worms 14'2 

Paspiilum laeve , 7 

PassiHora iucaruata, Aletia found webbing up in leaves of 91 

nectar of 'S2\i 

Past history of cotton- worms, chapter on IG 

Pia, boll-worm rs 290 

Peaches used as bait for Aletia 'iatl 

Pelopoeus caeruleus 180, 181 

Pentarthrum 194 

People of the South, courtesies from 8 

Pergaude, Th., acknowledgment of the services of 8 

Persian insect powder 236 

Persimmons as bait for Aletia 2Ul 

Peurifoy, J., quoted 139, 98 

Phaleua raori 113 

Pharbitis nil, Aletia webbing up in leaves of 92 

Phares, Dr. D. L., acknowledgment of assistance from 8 

articles on cotton- worm 2H0 

commendation of writings of 75 

quoted 27,21,20, 177, 182, 192, IGG, 19,98, 121 

Phaseolus vulgaris, boll- worm rs - 296 

Pheidole megacephala, time of working 330 

Philips, M. W., article on cot ton -worm 277 

Phoberia atomaris mistaken for Aletia lOB 

Phora 231 

aletiae 208,209,214 

incrassata 209 

Physalis lanceolata, Aletia webbing uj) in leaves of 92 

Picus pubescens vs. cotton- worms 142 

Pimpla 230 

annulipes - 212, 2(M) 

couquisitor 198,190,191 

mentioned by Dr. Gorham 119 

Pine-apple sirup as bait for Aletia 2(i0 

Pitcher plants .328,329 

Pitman, R., lantern 2C8 

Plaster : 220,227,228 

Plovers vs. insects.. 212 

Plume moths - 12 

Plusia, the genus IIG 

Podisus spiuosa. (See Arma spinosa) 

Pogonomy rmex barbatus 186 

occidentalis 186 

Poinsettia pulcherrima, figured 318 

Poisons 232 

Poisoned sweets rs. Aletia 257 

Poisoning as a remedy for boll-worm 312 

Poison, mode of apjilying 236 

Polistes sp 180 

bellicosa 180, 181 

Polyurgus rufescens 188 

Popular names of Aletia 11 

Poultry vs. cotton- worms 139 

Powell, R. H., quoted 140 

Prairie chicken vs. cotton-worms 142 

Predaceous insects, limitation of 162 

Prenolepis niteres 183 

pyramica. (iS'ee Doryrayrmex insanus.) 

Preparations for poi&oning, importance of early 236 

Prionotus cr istatus 212, 168 

Pristiphora grossulariae, Arma spinosa vs 166 

Proctotrupidae 197 

Proctotrupid parasite of Aletia 197 

Prodenia autumnalis - 180 

Prompt action in poisoning, importance of 238 

Pseudomyrma guarding acacia 328 

Pterophoridae 12 

Pteris aquilina, nectar of 332 

Pugh, E. D., lantern 270 



508 INDEX. 

Page. 

Pulvinaria innumerabilis 179 

Pumpkins, boll- worm vs 297 

Pupa of Aletia 83 

destrnction of 256 

list of the plants in the leaves of which it has been found 93 

length of ijupa state of last brood 96 

Purdie, H. A., quoted 144 

Pyralidae 12 

Pyrethr um 286 

cinerariae-f olium 236 

Q. 

Quails vs. cotton-worms 142 

Quassia vs. cotton-worms 21G 

Quercus aquatica, Aletia webbing up in leaves 92 

R. 

Raccoons vs. cotton-worms 138 

Rain-crow vs. cotton- worms 142 

Rapacious soldier-bug 169 

Rapliigaster hilaris ^ 167 

Raublliegen 170 

Rear-horse vs. the cotton-worm 1G5 

Red peppers, boll- worm vs 297 

Red River Republican, quoted 22 

Reduviua novenarius 168 

raptator ius I(i9 

Red wing black-biid vs. cotton-worm 140 

Ret-d-bird vs. cotton- worms 141 

Reese, W. P., article on cotton-worm 283 

Remedies, chapter on 2Jt 

Report, printing ordered 7 

Rhiuuchus uasulus. {See Acanthocephala femorata.) 

Rhopalocera 11 

Rice-birds vs. cotton-worms 141 

Richards, E., quoted 23 

Richardson, C. B., quoted 138, 140 

Ricinus communis, ligured 318 

Rulgway, R., acknowledgment of assistance from 8 

list of southern birds furnished by 159 

quoted 148 

Rigels, Mark, lantern 272, 273 

Riley, C. V., acknowledgment of determinations of parasites by 8 

articles on cotton-worm 281,262,283,284 

disputed by Grote, A. R 116 

history of the cotton- worm investigation as conducted by 3 

proposes Paris green as a remedy 38 

quoted 201,205,289,300,295,117,89 

region of country assigned to 3 

Ring-legged Pimpla 200 

Robber-flies 170 

Robinson, W. T., sprinkler and duster 251,252 

Rocky Mountain locust, killed by Tachinas 203 

Rodgers, J. R., quoted 122 

Roobevelt, T., jr.. quoted 145 

Rose mallow, boll-worm vs 297 

Rosin. 220,226,227,228 

Rotation of crops as a remedy for boll-worm 312 

RoyalFs mixture 220,222,227 

Rum as bait for Aletia 260 

Russell, R. W., quoted 98 



St. Landry Whig, quoted 22 

Sanderson, E. , quoted 294 

Sau Domingo, cotton-worm in 72 

Sap sucker, vs. cotton-worms 142 



INDEX. 509 

Page. 

Sarcopliaga carnaria, figured 204 

u.sp. 20() 

sarraceniae 205 

sp 212 

Sarcophagidae, general remarks upon 204 

Sarracenia flava 20.} 

Sarracenia, sarcopbaga in leaves of 205 

variolaris 20G 

variolaris, nectar of '326 

Sassafras, Aletia webbing up in leaves of 92 

Saunders, W., description of Depressaria g088yj)iella 14 

Say, Thomas, describes Noctua xy Una 12 

letter to Dr. Capers 12 

original description of cotton-moth 27() 

quoted 199,201 

Schizoneura Americana, Sinea multispinosa, vs 170 

Schwarz, E. A., engagement of 3 

quoted 139,165 

trip through the South in the winter of 1878-1879 101, 105 

Scoliadae 181 

Seabrook, Hon. W. B., quoted , 17,19,25,139 

on cotton- worm 277 

Semasia prunivora 179 

Serville, quoted .- 202 

Shaw, H. B., quoted 122 

Sherriod, C. F., quoted 140 

Sialia sialis vs. cotton-worms 141 

Sicily, enemies to the cotton crop in 71 

Sida spinosa, Aletia webbiug up in leaves of 92 

Sinea multispinosa 1G9 

Sinyphia communis I(i3 

Sirup ^'s. Aletia 258 

Smith aud Calhoun quoted 98 

E. A., appointment as local observer , 3 

quoted 92,93,94,97,259,101 

Smith, Miss Emma A., quoted 172 

Smith-Vaniz, G. W., letter from 143 

quoted 209,141 

Snout-moths 12 

Solanum carolinense, Aletia webbing up in leaves of 92 

Soldier beetles 175 

bug lot) 

Solenopsis 188 

fugax 188 

xyloni 188,183 

Sorsby, Col. B. A., quoted 258 

Sources of information for past history 1(5 

South Carolina, average losses -. -. 70 

Spalding, Mr., quoted 19 

Sparrow, cbippiug, rs. cotton- worms 142 

field, vs. cotton-worms 142 

song, ts. cotton-worms 142 

the English, controversy 142 

Sphingiflae 11 

Spiders, jumping, vs. cotton-worms 162 

vs. boll- worms «311 

cotton-worms 162 

Spillman, W., quoted 140, 122 

Spined soldier-bug vs. the cotton-worm 166 

Spinners 11 

Spizella fusilla vs, cotton-worms 142 

Squash, boll-worm vs 297 

Statistics of losses ---• 63,70 

Stelle, J. P., articles on cotton- worms 281,282,283 

])roj)uses Paris green as a remedy 38 

Stephens, J. R., lantem 267 

Stickuey, W. A., letter from, on first use of Paris green 38 

Stitb, J., cotton-worm exterminator 274 

Stolen werck, H. A., quoted 1-10 



510 INDEX. 

Page. 

Strawberry simp, as bait for Aletia 260 

Striug-beaus, boll-worms is 2i)6 

Strychnia is. Aletia 259 

Summary of losses -, 69 

Sweet-gum, Aletia webbing up iu leaves of 92 

potato, Aletia webbing up in leaves of 92 

Sweets, poisoned 257 

Syuonomy of Aletia, history of 12 

the cotton-moth 15 

T. 

Table of amount of damage 47-62 

average losses 70 

winds 12d 

Tachina 230 

aletiae 212,203 

vs. heliothis 311 

anonyma - - 203 

vs. heliothis 311 

flies, habits of 202 

vs. grasshoppers 203 

sp 204,212 

Tachinidae, remarks on 202 

Tackaberry, S. B., quoted 184 

Tassel-worm 308 

Taylor, F. G. H., article on cotton- worm 281 

Teiea polyphemus 201 

Tennessee, average losses 70 

Tethragnatba extensa 163 

Tetracha Carolina 174 

virginica 174 

Tetramorinm caespitum 188 

Tetrastichus - 195 

Texas, average losses 70 

worm destroyer 220,221,222,223,224 

cotton-worm destroyer 232 

Theridium funebre 163 

globosum 163 

Thick-thighed metapodius i-s. the cotton- worm 167 

Thompson, E. M., quoted 121, 171 

Tiger beetles — 1'-^ 

Tiiieidae 12 

Tobacco, boll-worm vs 297 

Tomatoes, boll- worm vs 295 

Tomato- worm, use of name 292 

Toombs, Hon. R., ravages of worms on plantation of 21 

Topping cotton as a remedy for boll-worm 312 

Tortricidae 12 

Townshend, Jno., method of saving crop 25 

quoted 139 

Treat, Mrs. Mary, quoted 296,302 

Trelease, W., appointment as special agent 7 

quoted 168, 166, 164, 163, 184, 180, 179, 177, 215, 203, 37 

recalled to Washington 8 

scope of work 7,8 

Trichogamma evanescens 194 

minuta 193 

pretiosa 193 

Trimen, R., quoted .. 87 

Turkey, the wild, vs. cottou-vrorms 142 

vs. cotton -worms 1<^9 

Turpentine, oil of 220,221,225 

Tyrannus carolinensis vs. cotton-worms 141 

U 

Unnamed chalcid parasite 196 

Upton, W. S., article on cotton- worm 277 

Ure, Andrew, work on cotton manufacture 277 



INDEX. 511 

V 

Page. 

Vanessa atalanta ~^ 103 

Vaudreuil, Governor, dispatch of 18 

Vertebrate enemies of the cotton- worm 138 

Vespa, maculata 180, 181 

sp 180 

Vespariae vs. cotton-worms 180 

Vicia sativa, nectar of 33JJ 

Vinegar as bait for Aletia 260 

W 

Wailes, B. C. L., account of the cotton-worm 13 

on cotton- worm 278 

article on cotton-worm 283 

Waldo, J. C , article on cotton-worm 283 

Walsh and Riley, articles on cotton- worm 279 

B. D., article on cotton- worm 279 

Wasps vs. boll-worms 311, 180 

Watermelon, Aletia webbing up in leaves of - 92 

Watts, F. A., circular of 39 

P. S., quoted 184 

Weather, intlueuce of 133 

Webb, G. F., quoted 140, 16(> 

Welch, C, quoted 140 

West Irdies, cotton-worm of 10 

Wet poisDus 238 

weather, influence of, on the worms 134 

Wheat-head army worm 12 

Wheel-bug 168 

Whitman's fountain pump 239,241 

Whitner, B. F., quoted 289,24,21 

Whitney, A. K., quoted 233 

Wilkins, J., quoted , 166 

Willet, J. E., appointment as local observer 3 

quoted 214,167,94,95,96 

trip to South Georgia in search of hibernating moths 101 

Williams, R. J., quoted .. 138 

Williams. R. S., quoted , 98 

Willie, W. F., machine for poisoning 243 

sitter 248 

Winds, influence of. on migrations of moths 121 

table of 1 128 

Winfree, P., article on cotton- worm 277 

quoted 181,20 

Winters, influence of cold 133 

Worm-proof cotton 216 

Wyman, Jeffries, quoted 119 

X. 

Xanthium strumarium, Aletia webbing up in leaves of 92 

Xysticus sp 163 

Y. 

Yeast, experiments with, on Aletia , 217,218 

torulae vs. insects 217 

Yellow-banded ichneumon 198 

fever vs. cotton-insect investigation 6 

jacket vs. cot tou- worms 141 

oriole vs. cotton- worms 141 

Young, J. W., poison-sifter 246 

W., quoted 184 

Z. 

Zimmerman, J. H., article on the cotton-worm 278 

quoted 294 

Zygaenidae 11 



